Delhi District Court
The Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd vs Sh. Ashu Sabharwal on 24 May, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. M.K.GUPTA, ADJ,
TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI.
SUIT NO.183/06 ****
THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD.
HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT SRINAGAR,
KASHMIR AND A BRANCH AMONGST OTHERS
AT C-5/6, SECTOR -2, ROHINI
DELHI
THROUGH ITS ATTORNEY/
PRINCIPAL OFFICER ...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SH. ASHU SABHARWAL
S/O SH MANJEET SABHARWAL
PROPRIETOR,
M/S ASHUTOSH AGRO FOOTS,
111, VINOBA PURI, LAJPAT NAGAR-III
NEW DELHI
ALSO AT
2650/2, GALI RAGHUNANDAN,
NAYA BAZAR, SADAR BAZAR,
DELHI-110006 ...DEFENDANT
DATE OF INSTITUTION :- 22.8.2006
DATE OF DECISION :- 24.5.2007
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment, I shall decide the suit 2 for recovery of Rs. 4,92,358.35 filed by the plaintiff against defendant thereby alleging that the defendant being the sole proprietor of M/s Ashutosh Agro Foots submitted an application on 27.6.2002 for opening an account and after completing necessary formalities, defendant opened a current account general with the plaintiff bank on 27.6.2002 bearing account no. 0393 CD 372 and operated the said account from time to time.
2. The plaintiff further alleged that on 22.8.2003 the bank through clearing received a cheque bearing no. 023636 dated 21.8.2003 issued by the defendant in favour of M/s R.K. Associates in the sum of Rs. 3,28,000/- and as there was no balance in the said account, the defendant was informed and thereafter on 3 the request of the defendant , the branch manager of the plaintiff bank considering the past performance in the account , accepted the request of the defendant and permitted an overdraft to the tune of Rs. 3,26,000/- by passing the aforesaid cheque on 23.8.2003.
3. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that at the time of passing of the said cheque it was made clear to the defendant that the overdraft is temporary and has to be adjusted within few days and further the defendant shall have to bear the expanses and interest for the delayed payment in accordance with the normal practice and procedure of the bank and that the rate of interest with regard to temporary overdraft account was @ 15 % p.a. compounded quarterly.
4. It is further alleged that the defendant 4 failed to adhere to the promise and assurance given by him with regard to aforesaid temporary overdraft and failed to repay the amount with the bank along with prevailing rate of interest and as the defendant failed to pay the amount and as such the bank left with no option but to declare the said account as non performing account on 1.1.2004 showing debit balance of Rs. 3,46,136.35 and that thereafter the defendant deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 12.2.2004 and again deposited an amount of Rs. 2000/- on 29.3.2004 towards part satisfaction of the debit balance but the defendant failed to clear the account despite repeated request and visits by the officer of the plaintiff bank.
5. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that as the defendant failed to pay amount to the 5 bank , a legal notice was sent to the defendant on 1.9.2005 calling upon the defendant to pay amount due together with interest and another charges and that the defendant in-spite of receiving the said notice failed and/or neglected to pay amount due to the plaintiff bank. Hence the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff bank claiming principal amount of Rs. 3,25,190.35 and interest w.e.f. 23.8.2003 till the date of filing of the suit for Rs. 1,67,168/- and thereby totaling Rs. 4,92,358.35 from the defendant along with costs and future interest.
6. Record shows that defendant was served with summons by way of Regd. A.d. Post for appearance on 26.9.2006 but none appeared on behalf of defendant and as such vide order of the said date the defendant was 6 proceeded exparte.
7. After the defendant was proceeded exparte case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff and the plaintiff bank examined one witness named Sh. Inder Krishan Kaul as PW1 who is branch manager and this witness tendered his affidavit in evidence.
8. I have heard the counsel for plaintiff and gone through the record carefully.
9. The testimony of PW1 Sh. Inder Krishan Kaul branch manager of the plaintiff bank has remained consistent throughout unrebutted and unchallenged and there is nothing on record to disbelieve his testimony.
10. During his deposition before the court PW1 Sh. Inder Krishan Kaul proved his affidavit as Ex. PW 1/A which is on the identical lines as per plaint. 7
11. Besides his affidavit PW1 Sh. Inder Krishan Kaul proved various documents in support of the case of the plaintiff bank. Copy of GPA dated 2.8.2000 executed in favour of Sh Inder Krishan Kaul has been proved as Ex. PW 1/1 , account opening form of defendant is proved as Ex. PW 1/2, cheque dated 21.8.2003 for Rs. 3,28,000/- of the defendant is proved as Ex. PW 1/3 and it shows that on the said cheque an over draft of Rs. 3,26,000/- was sanctioned by the plaintiff bank, copy of legal notice dated 1.9.2005 sent to the defendant has been proved as Ex. PW 1/4, copy of statement of account of the defendant is proved as Ex. PW 1/5 , copy of circular dated 8.7.2004 issued by Joint General Manager of the plaintiff bank regarding rate of interest is proved as Ex. PW 1/ 6, copy of 8 another GPA executed in favour of PW1 Sh. Inder Krishan Kaul dated 6.1.2007 is proved as Ex. PW 1/7.
12. I have considered the testimony of PW1 Sh. Inder Krishan Kaul, considering the case of the plaintiff and I have also considered the documents proved by PW 1 Sh. Inder Krishan Kaul. I am of opinion that PW1 Sh. Inder Krishan Kaul has proved the case of the plaintiff bank against the defendant.
13. Accordingly I pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
14. For the foregoing reasons a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendant in the sum of Rs. 4,92,358.35/- along with costs of the suit. Plaintiff is also entitled to recover interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till 9 realization of the decreetal amount. After preparation of decree sheet, file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court today i.e 24.05.2007 (M.K.GUPTA) ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE DELHI.
1024.5.2007 Case file put up again after lunch. Present :- Counsel for plaintiff .
None for the defendant who is already exparte.
Vide separate judgment suit of the plaintiff is decreed. After preparation of decree sheet, file be consigned to record room.
ADJ/DELHI 24.5.2007 11 12 IN THE COURT OF SH. M.K.GUPTA, ADJ, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
SUIT NO.184/06 **** THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD.
HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT SRINAGAR, KASHMIR AND A BRANCH AMONGST OTHERS AT C-5/6, SECTOR -2, ROHINI DELHI THROUGH ITS ATTORNEY/ PRINCIPAL OFFICER ...PLAINTIFF VERSUS MRS. SURESH MAHINDROO W/O SH NAREDER KUMAR PROPRIETOR OF M/S ENKAY INTERNATIONAL, 39, TARUN ENCLAVE, PITAMPURA DELHI-110034. ...DEFENDANT DATE OF INSTITUTION :- 22.8.2006 DATE OF DECISION :- 24.5.2007 JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment, I shall decide the suit for recovery of Rs. 4,47,504.27 filed by the 13 plaintiff against defendant thereby alleging that the defendant being the sole proprietor of M/s Enkay International submitted an application on 09.07.2000 for opening an account and after completing necessary formalities, defendant opened a current account general with the plaintiff bank on 09.07.2000 bearing account no. 0393 CD 387 and operated the said account from time to time.
2. The plaintiff further alleged that on 22.8.2003 the bank through clearing received a cheque bearing no. 024322 dated 21.8.2003 issued by the defendant in favour of M/s R.K. Associates in the sum of Rs. 2,98,500/- and as there was no balance in the said account, the defendant was informed and thereafter on the request of the defendant, the branch 14 manager of the plaintiff bank considering the past performance in the account , accepted the request of the defendant and permitted an overdraft to the tune of Rs. 2,98,500/- by passing the aforesaid cheque on 23.8.2003.
3. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that at the time of passing of the said cheque it was made clear to the defendant that the overdraft is temporary and has to be adjusted within few days and further the defendant shall have to bear the expanses and interest for the delayed payment in accordance with the normal practice and procedure of the bank and that the rate of interest with regard to temporary overdraft account was @ 15 % p.a. compounded quarterly.
4. It is further alleged that the defendant failed to adhere to the promise and assurance 15 given by him with regard to aforesaid temporary overdraft and failed to repay the amount with the bank along with prevailing rate of interest and as the defendant failed to pay the amount and as such the bank left with no option but to declare the said account as non performing account on 1.1.2004 showing debit balance of Rs. 3,17,590.27 and that thereafter the defendant deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on 23.1.2004 and again deposited an amount of Rs. 5000/- on 12.2.2004 and further deposited a sum of Rs. 4000/- on 29.3.2004 towards part satisfaction of the debit balance but the defendant failed to clear the account despite repeated request and visits by the officer of the plaintiff bank.
5. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that as the defendant failed to pay amount to the 16 bank , a legal notice was sent to the defendant on 1.9.2005 calling upon the defendant to pay amount due together with interest and another charges and that the defendant in-spite of receiving the said notice failed and/or neglected to pay amount due to the plaintiff bank. Hence the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff bank claiming principal amount of Rs. 2,98,284.27 and interest w.e.f. 21.8.2003 till the date of filing of the suit for Rs. 1,49,220/- and thereby totaling Rs. 4,47,504.27 from the defendant along with costs and future interest.
6. Record shows that defendant was served with summons by way of publication in a newspaper ''The Statesman'' of dated 27.2.2007 for appearance on 14.3.2007 but none appeared on behalf of defendant and as 17 such vide order of the said date the defendant was proceeded exparte.
7. After the defendant was proceeded exparte case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff and the plaintiff bank examined one witness named Sh. Inder Krishan Kaul as PW1 who is branch manager and this witness tendered his affidavit in evidence.
8. I have heard the counsel for plaintiff and gone through the record carefully.
9. The testimony of PW1 Sh. Inder Krishan Kaul branch manager of the plaintiff bank has remained consistent throughout unrebutted and unchallenged and there is nothing on record to disbelieve his testimony.
10. During his deposition before the court PW1 Sh. Inder Krishan Kaul proved his affidavit as Ex. PW 1/A which is on the 18 identical lines as per plaint.
11. Besides his affidavit PW1 Sh. Inder Krishan Kaul proved various documents in support of the case of the plaintiff bank. Copy of GPA dated 2.8.2000 executed in favour of Sh Inder Krishan Kaul has been proved as Ex. PW 1/1 , account opening form of defendant is proved as Ex. PW 1/2, cheque dated 21.8.2003 for Rs. 3,28,000/- of the defendant is proved as Ex. PW 1/3 and it shows that on the said cheque an over draft of Rs. 2,98,500/- was sanctioned by the plaintiff bank, copy of legal notice dated 1.9.2005 sent to the defendant has been proved as Ex. PW 1/4, copy of statement of account of the defendant is proved as Ex. PW 1/5 , copy of circular dated 8.7.2004 issued by Joint General Manager of the plaintiff bank regarding rate of 19 interest is proved as Ex. PW 1/ 6, copy of another GPA executed in favour of PW1 Sh. Inder Krishan Kaul dated 6.1.2007 is proved as Ex. PW 1/7.
12. I have considered the testimony of PW1 Sh. Inder Krishan Kaul, considering the case of the plaintiff and I have also considered the documents proved by PW 1 Sh. Inder Krishan Kaul. I am of opinion that PW1 Sh. Inder Krishan Kaul has proved the case of the plaintiff bank against the defendant.
13. Accordingly I pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
14. For the foregoing reasons a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendant in the sum of Rs. 4,47,504.27/- along with costs of the suit. Plaintiff is also entitled to recover interest 20 @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the decreetal amount. After preparation of decree sheet, file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court today i.e 24.05.2007 (M.K.GUPTA) ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE DELHI.
2122 23 IN THE COURT OF SH. M.K.GUPTA, ADJ, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
SUIT NO.185/06 **** THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD.
HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT SRINAGAR, KASHMIR AND A BRANCH AMONGST OTHERS AT C-5/6, SECTOR -2, ROHINI DELHI THROUGH ITS ATTORNEY/ PRINCIPAL OFFICER ...PLAINTIFF VERSUS SH RAJESH KUMAR MAHINDROO S/O SH NARENDER KUMAR PROPRIETOR OF M/S R.M. TRADE LINKS, 39, TARUN ENCLAVE, PITAM PURA DELHI ...DEFENDANT DATE OF INSTITUTION :- 22.8.2006 DATE OF DECISION :- 24.5.2007 JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment, I shall decide the suit 24 for recovery of Rs. 4,65,862.00 filed by the plaintiff against defendant thereby alleging that the defendant being the sole proprietor of M/s R. M. Trade Links submitted an application on 17.08.2002 for opening an account and after completing necessary formalities, defendant opened a current account general with the plaintiff bank on 17.08.2002 bearing account no. 0393 CD 418 and operated the said account from time to time.
2. The plaintiff further alleged that on 22.8.2003 the bank through clearing received a cheque bearing no. 021433 dated 21.8.2003 issued by the defendant in favour of M/s R.K. Associates in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- and as there was no balance in the said account, the defendant was informed and thereafter on 25 the request of the defendant, the branch manager of the plaintiff bank considering the past performance in the account , accepted the request of the defendant and permitted an overdraft to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- by passing the aforesaid cheque on 23.8.2003.
3. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that at the time of passing of the said cheque it was made clear to the defendant that the overdraft is temporary and has to be adjusted within few days and further the defendant shall have to bear the expanses and interest for the delayed payment in accordance with the normal practice and procedure of the bank and that the rate of interest with regard to temporary overdraft account was @ 15 % p.a. compounded quarterly.
4. It is further alleged that the defendant 26 failed to adhere to the promise and assurance given by him with regard to aforesaid temporary overdraft and failed to repay the amount with the bank along with prevailing rate of interest and as the defendant failed to pay the amount and as such the bank left with no option but to declare the said account as non performing account on 1.1.2004 showing debit balance of Rs. 3,30,086.00 and that thereafter the defendant deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on 23.1.2004 and again deposited an amount of Rs. 5000/- on 12.2.2004 and further deposited a sum of Rs. 4000/- on 29.3.2004 towards part satisfaction of the debit balance but the defendant failed to clear the account despite repeated request and visits by the officer of the plaintiff bank.
5. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that 27 as the defendant failed to pay amount to the bank , a legal notice was sent to the defendant on 1.9.2005 calling upon the defendant to pay amount due together with interest and another charges and that the defendant in-spite of receiving the said notice failed and/or neglected to pay amount due to the plaintiff bank. Hence the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff bank claiming principal amount of Rs. 3,10,000/- and interest w.e.f. 21.8.2003 till the date of filing of the suit for Rs. 1,55,862/- and thereby totaling Rs. 4,65,862.00 from the defendant along with costs and future interest.
6. Record shows that defendant was served with summons by way of publication in a newspaper ''The Statesman'' of dated 27.2.2007 for appearance on 14.3.2007 but 28 none appeared on behalf of defendant and as such vide order of the said date the defendant was proceeded exparte.
7. After the defendant was proceeded exparte case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff and the plaintiff bank examined one witness named Sh. Inder Krishan Kaul as PW1 who is branch manager and this witness tendered his affidavit in evidence.
8. I have heard the counsel for plaintiff and gone through the record carefully.
9. The testimony of PW1 Sh. Inder Krishan Kaul branch manager of the plaintiff bank has remained consistent throughout unrebutted and unchallenged and there is nothing on record to disbelieve his testimony.
10. During his deposition before the court PW1 Sh. Inder Krishan Kaul proved his 29 affidavit as Ex. PW 1/A which is on the identical lines as per plaint.
11. Besides his affidavit PW1 Sh. Inder Krishan Kaul proved various documents in support of the case of the plaintiff bank. Copy of GPA dated 2.8.2000 executed in favour of Sh Inder Krishan Kaul has been proved as Ex. PW 1/1 , account opening form of defendant is proved as Ex. PW 1/2, cheque dated 21.8.2003 for Rs. 3,00,000/- of the defendant is proved as Ex. PW 1/3 and it shows that on the said cheque an over draft of Rs. 3,00,000/- was sanctioned by the plaintiff bank, copy of legal notice dated 1.9.2005 sent to the defendant has been proved as Ex. PW 1/4, copy of statement of account of the defendant is proved as Ex. PW 1/5 , copy of circular dated 8.7.2004 issued by Joint General 30 Manager of the plaintiff bank regarding rate of interest is proved as Ex. PW 1/ 6, copy of another GPA executed in favour of PW1 Sh. Inder Krishan Kaul dated 6.1.2007 is proved as Ex. PW 1/7.
12. I have considered the testimony of PW1 Sh. Inder Krishan Kaul, considering the case of the plaintiff and I have also considered the documents proved by PW 1 Sh. Inder Krishan Kaul. I am of opinion that PW1 Sh. Inder Krishan Kaul has proved the case of the plaintiff bank against the defendant.
13. Accordingly I pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
14. For the foregoing reasons a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendant in the sum of Rs. 4,65,862.00/- along with costs of the suit. 31 Plaintiff is also entitled to recover interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the decreetal amount. After preparation of decree sheet, file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court today i.e 24.05.2007 (M.K.GUPTA) ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE DELHI.
3233 34 IN THE COURT OF SH. M.K.GUPTA, ADJ, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
SUIT NO.186/06 *** THE JAMMU & KASHMIR BANK LTD.
HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT SRINAGAR, KASHMIR AND A BRANCH AMONGST OTHERS AT C-5/6, SECTOR -2, ROHINI DELHI THROUGH ITS ATTORNEY/ PRINCIPAL OFFICER ...PLAINTIFF VERSUS
1. M/S CHEM PLUS ORGANICS INC.
2003, MODERN INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BAHADURGARH, DISTRICT JHAJJAR, HARYANA, THROUGH ITS PARTNERS.
2. SH. NARENDER KUMAR S/O SH MUNNI LAL 39, TARUN ENCLAVE, PITAMPURA DELHI PARTNER, M/S CHEM PLUS ORGANICS INC.
3. SH RAHUL JAIN S/O SH RAJINDER JAIN C/O HOUSE NO. 14, INDER ENCLAVE, OPPOSITE UDYOG NAGAR ROHTAK ROAD, DELHI PARTNER M/S CHEM PLUS ORGANICS INC ..DEFENDANTS 35 DATE OF INSTITUTION :- 22.8.2006 DATE OF DECISION :- 24.5.2007 JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment, I shall decide the suit for recovery of Rs. 4,66,350.80 filed by the plaintiff against defendant thereby alleging that the defendant no.1 is a partnership concern of defendant no. 2 and 3 and carrying on its business at the address as mentioned in the title of the plaint. It is further alleged that defendants submitted an application on 30.04.2002 for opening an account and after completing necessary formalities, defendant opened a current account general with the plaintiff bank on 30.04.2002 bearing account no. 0393 CD 339 and operated the said account from time to time.
2. The plaintiff further alleged that on 22.8.2003 the bank through clearing received 36 a cheque bearing no. 015676 dated 21.8.2003 issued by the defendant in favour of M/s R.K. Associates in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- and as there was no balance in the said account, the defendant was informed and thereafter on the request of the defendant, the branch manager of the plaintiff bank considering the past performance in the account , accepted the request of the defendant and permitted an overdraft to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- by passing the aforesaid cheque on 23.8.2003.
3. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that at the time of passing of the said cheque it was made clear to the defendant that the overdraft is temporary and has to be adjusted within few days and further the defendant shall have to bear the expanses and interest for the delayed payment in accordance with the normal 37 practice and procedure of the bank and that the rate of interest with regard to temporary overdraft account was @ 15 % p.a. compounded quarterly.
4. It is further alleged that the defendant failed to adhere to the promise and assurance given by him with regard to aforesaid temporary overdraft and failed to repay the amount with the bank along with prevailing rate of interest and as the defendant failed to pay the amount and as such the bank left with no option but to declare the said account as non performing account on 1.1.2004 showing debit balance of Rs. 3,16,663.80. It is alleged that the defendants failed to clear the account despite repeated request and visits by the officer of the plaintiff bank. 38
5. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that as the defendants failed to pay amount to the bank , a legal notice was sent to the defendants on 1.9.2005 calling upon the defendants to pay amount due together with interest and another charges and that the defendants in-spite of receiving the said notice failed and/or neglected to pay amount due to the plaintiff bank. Hence the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff bank claiming principal amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- and interest w.e.f. 21.8.2003 till the date of filing of the suit for Rs. 1,66,350.80 and thereby totaling Rs. 4,66,350.80 from the defendants along with costs and future interest.
6. Record shows that defendants were served with summons by way of publication in a newspaper ''The Statesman'' of dated 39 27.2.2007 for appearance on 14.3.2007 but none appeared on behalf of defendants and as such vide order of the said date the defendants were proceeded exparte.
7. After the defendants were proceeded exparte case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff and the plaintiff bank examined one witness named Sh. Inder Krishan Kaul as PW1 who is branch manager and this witness tendered his affidavit in evidence.
8. I have heard the counsel for plaintiff and gone through the record carefully.
9. The testimony of PW1 Sh. Inder Krishan Kaul branch manager of the plaintiff bank has remained consistent throughout unrebutted and unchallenged and there is nothing on record to disbelieve his testimony.
10. During his deposition before the court 40 PW1 Sh. Inder Krishan Kaul proved his affidavit as Ex. PW 1/A which is on the identical lines as per plaint.
11. Besides his affidavit PW1 Sh. Inder Krishan Kaul proved various documents in support of the case of the plaintiff bank. Copy of GPA dated 2.8.2000 executed in favour of Sh Inder Krishan Kaul has been proved as Ex. PW 1/1 , account opening form of defendant no.1 signed by both the partners who are defendants no. 2 and 3 is proved as Ex. PW 1/2, cheque dated 21.8.2003 for Rs. 3,00,000/- of the defendant is proved as Ex. PW 1/3 and it shows that on the said cheque an over draft of Rs. 3,00,000/- was sanctioned by the plaintiff bank, copy of legal notice dated 1.9.2005 sent to the defendant has been proved as Ex. PW 1/4, copy of statement of 41 account of the defendant is proved as Ex. PW 1/5 , copy of circular dated 8.7.2004 issued by Joint General Manager of the plaintiff bank regarding rate of interest is proved as Ex. PW 1/ 6, copy of another GPA executed in favour of PW1 Sh. Inder Krishan Kaul dated 6.1.2007 is proved as Ex. PW 1/7.
12. I have considered the testimony of PW1 Sh. Inder Krishan Kaul, considering the case of the plaintiff and I have also considered the documents proved by PW 1 Sh. Inder Krishan Kaul. I am of opinion that PW1 Sh. Inder Krishan Kaul has proved the case of the plaintiff bank against the defendants.
13. Accordingly I pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
14. For the foregoing reasons a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff bank and 42 against the defendants in the sum of Rs. 4,66,350.80 along with costs of the suit. Plaintiff is also entitled to recover interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till realization of the decreetal amount. After preparation of decree sheet, file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court today i.e 24.05.2007 (M.K.GUPTA) ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE DELHI.
4324.5.2007 Case file put up again after lunch. Present :- Counsel for plaintiff .
None for the defendants who are already exparte.
Vide separate judgment suit of the plaintiff is decreed. After preparation of decree sheet, file be consigned to record room.
ADJ/DELHI 24.5.2007