Delhi District Court
M/S Siddhidata Retail Marketing Pvt. ... vs Ms. Amaze India on 17 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVANGI MANGLA,
JMFC (NI Act) - 05
WEST TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR NO. : DLWT020023532021
CT. CASE NO. : 391/2021
CASE TITLE : M/s SIDDHIDATA RETAIL
MARKETING PVT. LTD Vs. MS.
AMAZE INDIA
17.01.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Complaint Case number : 391/2021
2. Name of the complainant : M/s Siddhidata Retail Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Authorized
Representative and Managing
Director, Mr. Sangit Agrawal, At
I-3, Kirti Nagar, New
Delhi-110015
Email: [email protected]
Mob: 9711161616
3. Name and address of the : 1. M/s Amaze India, accused Through its Partners/ Authorized Signatories Registered Office at 292/2316, Ashirwad CHS, Motilal Nagar, No. 2, MG Road, Goregaon (W) Mumbai-400104 Email:
[email protected] Other Address:
603, TheCoworking Space, Gala No. 81, Virwani Industrial Estate, Ct. Case No 391/2021 M/s SIDDHIDATA RETAIL MARKETING PVT. LTD Vs. MS. AMAZE INDIA Page No. 1 of 19 Digitally signed SHIVANGI by SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date: 2026.01.17 16:09:04 +0530 Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063
2. Shamsher Hashmi S/o Md. Hossain Hashmi, Partner/ Authorized Signatory M/s Amaze India Residential Address:
293/2330, Ashirwad CHS, Motilal Nagar, No. 2, MG Road, Goregaon(W) Mumbai -400104 Contact No. 8208893951
3. Sh. Praveen Thimappa Kotian Partner/ Authorized Signatory M/s Amaze India Address:
292/2316, Ashirwad CHS, Motilal Nagar, No. 2, MG Road, Goregaon (W) Mumbai-400104 Email: [email protected] Contact No. 9870467766
4. Offence complained of or : Under Section 138 of the proved Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
5. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Final Order : CONVICTION
7. Date of Institution : 08.02.2021
8. Date of pronouncement : 17.01.2026 Ct. Case No 391/2021 M/s SIDDHIDATA RETAIL MARKETING PVT. LTD Vs. MS.
AMAZE INDIA Page No. 2 of 19 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.01.17 16:09:09 +0530 JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present matter, Ct. Cases No. 391/2021 filed by complainant against the dishonour of 2 cheques bearing no. 344244 dated 15.11.2020 and bearing no.
344245 dated 16.11.2020 both for a sum of Rs. 63,80,700/- each both drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Goregaon (W), Mumbai(MH), Mumbai-400062 (henceforth, the cheques in question).
2. Briefly stated, the facts that the complainant is a company engaged in corporate gifting and prepaid gift cards/vouchers represented by its Director duly authorized by a board resolution. Accused No. 1 is a partnership firm dealing in Amazon gift vouchers. Accused No. 2 (Shamsher Hashmi) and Accused No. 3 (Praveen Kotiyan) are partners responsible for the day-to-day affairs and transactions of Accused No. 1. In first week of July 2020, the accused persons approached the complainant claiming to be distributors of Amazon India gift vouchers and promised high returns, inducing the complainant to invest in their business. Relying on these assurances, the complainant transferred a total amount of Rs. 1,45,11,400/- in the bank account of accused no. 1 through RTGS in multiple amounts on 18.09.2020 and 31.09.2020 for purchase of Amazon e-gift vouchers. Despite receiving the money, the accused persons failed to deliver the e-gift vouchers. Repeated requests and communications by the complainant went unanswered and were avoided. After persistent follow-up, the Ct. Case No 391/2021 M/s SIDDHIDATA RETAIL MARKETING PVT. LTD Vs. MS. AMAZE INDIA Page No. 3 of 19 Digitally signed SHIVANGI by SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date: 2026.01.17 16:09:14 +0530 accused refunded only Rs. 17,50,000/- leaving a balance of Rs. 1,27,61,400/- unpaid. To repay the remaining amount, Accused No. 2 issued two PDCs of Rs. 63,80,700/- each in favor of the complainant in discharge of Legal debt/ liability towards complainant. On presentation, cheque bearing no. 344244 was dishonored with remarks "Drawer's Signature Differs" on 23.11.2020 and 17.12.2020 and the cheque bearing no. 344245 was dishonored with remarks "Funds Insufficient" on 23.11.2020.
3. Thereafter, complainant sent a Legal notice dated 21.12.2020 to the accused persons through registered post calling upon them to pay the outstanding amount. It is the case of the complainant that despite service/receipt of the notice, the accused persons failed to repay the amount within 15 days. Hence, the present complaint.
4. The present complaint was filed within the limitation period.
5. Pre summoning evidence affidavit was filed and the cognizance was taken u/s 138 NI Act and summons were issued to accused persons thereupon.
6. Notice was framed against the accused persons on 01.09.2021 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Application u/s 145(2) was filed on behalf of accused persons and Ct. Case No 391/2021 M/s SIDDHIDATA RETAIL MARKETING PVT. LTD Vs. MS. AMAZE INDIA Page No. 4 of 19 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.01.17 16:09:19 +0530 the same was allowed in consideration of no objection.
7. AR / Sangit Aggarwal has examined himself as CW1 and filed his evidence by way of affidavit. He has relied upon the documents : -
1. Original cheque bearing no.Ex.C1/1
344244
2. Ex.C1/2 Original cheque bearing no.
344245 Original Returning Memo dated
3. Ex.C1/3 23.11.2020 against cheque no.
344245 Original Returning Memo dated
4. Ex.C1/4 23.11.2020 against cheque no.
344244 Original Returning Memo dated
5. Ex.C1/5 17.11.2020 against cheque no.
344244
6. Reply to Legal Notice dated Ex .C1/6 08.01.2021
7. Original Postal Receipts along Ex.C1/7 (Colly) with Tracking reports Ct. Case No 391/2021 M/s SIDDHIDATA RETAIL MARKETING PVT. LTD Vs. MS. AMAZE INDIA Page No. 5 of 19 Digitally signed SHIVANGI by SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date: 2026.01.17 16:09:23 +0530
8. Bank statement from 01.04.2020 Ex. C1/8 to 15.01.2021
9. Resolution of complainant Ex. C1/9 company in favor of AR Copy of Legal notice dated
10. Mark C1/1 (Colly) 21.12.2020 along with Postal receipts and Tracking report.
11. Mark C1/2 Copy of Memorandum of Udyog Aadhaar
12. Mark C1/3 Copy of PAN Card of accused no.
113. Mark C1/4 Photocopies of PAN Card and Aadhaar card of accused no. 2 Copy of email dated 08.10.2020
14. Mark C1/5 sent by accused no. 3 on behalf of accused no. 1.
15. Mark C1/6 Copy of Letter dated 07.10.2020 along with Tracking report Copy of complaint dated
16. Ex C1/10 28.12.2020 sent to Joint Commissioner of Police, EOW Cell.
Copies of email communication
17. Mark C1/8 (Colly) between complainant and accused persons
18. Ex. CW1/11 Original complaint.
Ct. Case No 391/2021 M/s SIDDHIDATA RETAIL MARKETING PVT. LTD Vs. MS. AMAZE INDIA Page No. 6 of 19 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.01.17 16:09:31 +0530
8. CW1/AR was examined in chief and cross examined in part on 06.05.2022 & discharged after examination on 05.12.2023.
Closing CE. Matter was listed for SA.
9. The accused persons were examined and their statements were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. on 10.01.2024 after all the incriminating evidence and the documents on record were put to them. Accused persons had chosen to lead evidence in their defence. Accordingly, the matter was fixed for DE.
10. DW1/Accused no. 2 was examined in chief, cross examined in part on 09.07.2024, 15.10.2024, 18.07.2025 & discharged on 28.11.2025 after further examination. Accused has relied upon following documents.
1. Ex. DW1/1 Original MOU dated 05.02.2020
2. Bank statement from 01.06.2020 Ex. DW1/2 to 30.08.2020
3. Ex. DW1/3 Copy of Whatsapp Chat
4. Certificate u/s 65 B IEA for Ex. DW1/4 downloaded copy of Screenshot
5. Ex. DW1/5 Covering letter dated 23.10.2020 Ct. Case No 391/2021 M/s SIDDHIDATA RETAIL MARKETING PVT. LTD Vs. MS. AMAZE INDIA Page No. 7 of 19 Digitally signed SHIVANGI by SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date: 2026.01.17 16:09:36 +0530
6. Ex. DW1/6 Printout of email conversation
7. Certificate u/s 65B IEA for Ex. DW1/7 downloaded copy of email.
Certified copy of complaint
8. bearing no. 564/SS/2021 u/s 138 Ex. DW1/8 NIA along with annexures and evidence affidavit
9. Certified copy of summoning Ex. DW1/9 order dated 13.07.2021
10. Ex. DW1/10 Certified copies of Proclamation order dated 22.08.2023 Certified copy of FIR bearing
11. Ex. DW1/11 C.R. No. 401 of 2020 dated 16.12.2020 Thereafter, DE was closed and the matter was listed for final arguments.
11. Both the Counsels led their oral submissions in length and filed judgments in support of their case. Rebuttal submissions also taken from both the counsels. The submissions made on behalf of both the parties and the judgments relied on by the parties have been considered.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION, APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND CONSEQUENT FINDINGS:
Ct. Case No 391/2021 M/s SIDDHIDATA RETAIL MARKETING PVT. LTD Vs. MS. AMAZE INDIA Page No. 8 of 19 Digitally signed SHIVANGI by SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date: 2026.01.17 16:09:47 +0530
12. To establish the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act against the accused, the complainant must prove the following: -
i. the accused issued a cheque on account maintained by him with a bank.
ii. the said cheque has been issued in discharge, in whole or in part, of any legal debt or other liability.
iii. the said cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date of cheque or within the period of its validity.
iv. the aforesaid cheque, when presented for encashment, was returned unpaid/dishonored.
v. the payee of the cheque issued a legal notice of demand to the drawer within 30 days from the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque.
vi. the drawer of the cheque failed to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of aforesaid legal notice of demand.
13. Accused no. 2 Shamsher Hashmi admitted issuance of the cheque as well as admitted signatures on the cheque to be belonging to him at every stage; from notice under section 251 Cr.P.C. to his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused no. 2 has denied his signatures on the cheque in question. However, no evidence has been led by him to support his defence. Accused no. 2 has represented accused no. 1 company also. Accordingly, the Ct. Case No 391/2021 M/s SIDDHIDATA RETAIL MARKETING PVT. LTD Vs. MS. AMAZE INDIA Page No. 9 of 19 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.01.17 16:09:52 +0530 admittance of the signatures along with the issuance validates the issuance of the cheques in question in favor of the complainant for consideration. Accordingly, presumption under section 118(a) and under section 139 of NI Act arises. Unless the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed that the cheques in question were drawn for a consideration and that the complainant received the cheques in question in discharge of a debt/ liability from the accused. In order to rebut the presumptions, the burden of proof shifts to the accused persons to prove on a preponderance of probabilities that there was no liability for the amount of cheques in question.
(Reliance placed on Triyambak S. Hegde vs Sripad decided by 3 judge bench of Hon'ble SC on 23.09.2021 and Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418; Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar (2019) 4SCC; K Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1999) 7 SCC510; Hiten P. Dalal Vs. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC16; 8 Kalamani Tex and Ors Vs. B Balasubramanian (2021) SCC online SC 75; J. Vasantha Kumar Vs. Vipyakuman Kumar AIR 2015 SC 2240; Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S.Borcar Crl. Appeal no.1755/2010 )
14. Therefore, in the present matter, the onus of proof is now upon the accused side to raise a probable defence and to rebut the presumption of the existence of a legally recoverable debt Ct. Case No 391/2021 M/s SIDDHIDATA RETAIL MARKETING PVT. LTD Vs. MS. AMAZE INDIA Page No. 10 of 19 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA Date: MANGLA 2026.01.17 16:09:56 +0530 arisen in favor of the complainant. It is now to be examined as to whether the accused has brought any material on record dislodging the presumption which meets the standard of preponderance of probabilities.
15. All the accused persons have collectively pleaded that the cheques in question were issued for security purpose to the complainant. It has been repeatedly pleaded in defence that the accused persons had to purchase Amazon vouchers from firm namely Arbitz Pvt. Ltd. and thereafter the same were to be supplied to the complainant. For the aforesaid purpose the complainant advanced amount which was further transferred to Arbitz Pvt. Ltd. However, the said firm Arbitz Pvt. Ltd. failed to supply the vouchers and issued PDCs in favor of accused persons and on the strength of the same the cheques in question were issued by the accused in favor of the complainant with directions to not to present the same for encashment without intimation. Later Arbitz Pvt. Ltd. defaulted in payment and the cheque got bounced for which separate legal proceedings are pending before Mumbai Courts. While the complainant presented the cheques in question without intimation and got the same dishonored. It has been further pleaded that the payment to the complainant was subject to the condition of receipt of payment from Arbitz Pvt. Ltd. Hence, it has been pleaded that there is no liability due towards the cheque in question.
Ct. Case No 391/2021 M/s SIDDHIDATA RETAIL MARKETING PVT. LTD Vs. MS. AMAZE INDIA Page No. 11 of 19 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.01.17 16:10:01 +0530
16. DW1/accused no. 2 placed on record MOU Ex. DW1/1 executed between the accused firm and Arbitz Pvt. Ltd. Firstly, admittedly complainant is not party to the said MOU. Secondly, as per deposition of DW1, the copy of the said MOU was never supplied and he deposed as- " I have not filed any document in the judicial file which can show that I have given copy of this MOU to the complainant at any time." Thirdly, the very authority of accused no. 1 to execute MOU on behalf of accused firm has been challenged and he admitted to be having no authorization on behalf of accused no. 1 to sign the said MOU. Fourthly, the said MOU has been admitted to be drafted on the stamp paper of the accused firm and further to be not attested by any notary or any other authority.
Here despite complete and blatant denial of the complainant with respect to the fact of having any knowledge about Arbitz Pvt. Ltd. and further denial by the complainant with respect to the arrangement or existence of any agreement between accused firm and Arbitz Pvt. Ltd. , no proof has been furnished to the effect that complainant was well aware of the existence of MOU Ex. DW1/1. While, Ld. counsel for the complainant has succeeded in challenging the very execution of the MOU Ex. DW1/1.
17. Further, accused persons pleaded that they were working as "mediator" between the complainant company and Arbitz Pvt. Ltd. However again, as per deposition of DW1 quoted below:
Ct. Case No 391/2021 M/s SIDDHIDATA RETAIL MARKETING PVT. LTD Vs. MS. AMAZE INDIA Page No. 12 of 19 Digitally signed SHIVANGI by SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date: 2026.01.17 16:10:05 +0530 " I have not filed any document issued that our firm was working as a mediator between the complainant company and M/s Arbitz Pvt. Ltd. .(Vol. My firm was doing only trading business for selling gift vouchers.)"
Having Ex. DW1/1 being challenged it became more important for the accused persons to furnish any other proof, oral or in writing, to show that they worked merely as mediator between the complainant company and Arbitz Pvt. Ltd. in view of the fact that the complainant denied acquaintance with Arbitz Pvt. Ltd. However, admittedly no document has been brought forth.
The said situation is further accompanied with deposition of DW1 -" no tripartite agreement was executed between me, complainant and Arbitz Pvt. Ltd. for supply of gift vouchers to the complainant firm."
Further DW 1/accused no. 2 stated that he received mediation fee or commission for giving gift vouchers to the complainant after taking the same from Arbitz Pvt. Ltd. and the same has been reflected in his account statement. However, despite perusal of the judicial file no such commission or mediation fees charges could be reflected by the witness. While the witness stated the discount mentioned in Mark DW1/C1 was the commission fees received from the complainant for acting as mediator.
Apart from the said noting of discount in Mark DW1/C1(colly), no other document has been furnished by the accused persons to show the mediation fees or the commission Ct. Case No 391/2021 M/s SIDDHIDATA RETAIL MARKETING PVT. LTD Vs. MS. AMAZE INDIA Page No. 13 of 19 Digitally signed SHIVANGI by SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date: 2026.01.17 16:10:11 +0530 charges that were paid by the complainant to the accused firm. No mentioning has been provided till date as to what was the rate on which the said mediation charges were to be calculated. No agreement or document has been provided as to from what date the said charges have to be calculated. No mode has been prescribed for the payment of the said charges by the complainant to the accused firm. And to more surprise, none of the accused persons mentioned about the existence of any mediation or commission fees during the first statement of defence under section 251 Cr.P.C.
Hence on basis of above reasoning, it can be observed that the accused persons have failed to prove the fact that they were acting merely as mediator between complainant and Arbitz Pvt. Ltd. They have further failed to establish the fact that complainant was known or aware of the supply of vouchers by Arbitz Pvt. Ltd. to accused firm.
18. It has been further pleaded in defence by accused persons that the payment to the complainant was subject to the receipt of payment from Arbitz Pvt. Ltd. And the same was informed to the complainant on which the covering letter dated 23.10.2020 was signed by the complainant company and for the same, security cheques were issued by accused firm in favor of the complainant company.
Here some extracts from deposition of DW 1 are highly relevant -
Ct. Case No 391/2021 M/s SIDDHIDATA RETAIL MARKETING PVT. LTD Vs. MS. AMAZE INDIA Page No. 14 of 19 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA Date: MANGLA 2026.01.17 16:10:14 +0530 "No agreement in writing was done with the complainant to the effect that no payments or vouchers would be given to the complainant by us till we receive payments from Arbitz Pvt. Ltd."
"I have never sent any email or WhatsApp message to the complainant firm stating to make payment on receipt of amount due to Arbitz Pvt. Ltd. towards me."
Admittedly, no intimation by way of email or any message was sent. Neither any agreement in writing was executed with the complainant that the payments of the complainant shall be completed only on the condition when the payments towards the accused firm be completed by Arbitz Pvt. Ltd.
Further, the accused persons have placed their defence on a covering letter dated 23.10.2020. However, the said document has been filed in photocopy and despite being questioned many times and despite undertaking of the accused side the original has never been brought on record. DW1 gave admittance in this regard during his deposition also. Hence, the document filed in photocopy cannot be given any evidentiary value. And the contents therein cannot be relied on.
On the basis of the above, it can be observed that there was no written communication between the accused persons and the complainant that the payment of the complainant shall be subject to receipt of payment by the accused firm. Hence, the said defence has also not been proved.
Ct. Case No 391/2021 M/s SIDDHIDATA RETAIL MARKETING PVT. LTD Vs. MS. AMAZE INDIA Page No. 15 of 19 Digitally signed SHIVANGI by SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date: 2026.01.17 16:10:19 +0530
19. Further, accused persons have admitted issuance of the cheque in favor of the complainant but the only defence pleaded by them is with respect to the fact that the cheques in question were issued for the security purpose and were not to be deposited without any intimation.
Here again, certain extract from the testimony of DW1 are relevant -"I do not remember if I have sent any email to the complainant to the effect that I asked the complainant to deposit the cheque on my instructions that is after I received the payment from Arbitz Pvt. Ltd. ( Court: the said statement given by witness after seeing the judicial file). I do not remember whether I gave an email to the complainant to the fact that I gave these cheques to him as security. (Court: the said statement given by witness after seeing the judicial file.)"
No proof has been furnished firstly to the effect that the cheques in question were issued by the accused persons in favor of the complainant only in lieu of security and were not to be presented for encashment. Secondly, nothing has been brought on record that there was any previous intimation required before presentment of the cheques in question from the accused firm. The security cheques are covered within the provisions of section 138 NIA as also held in the case of Suresh Chandra Goyal vs Amit Singhal D.O.D 14 May, 2015 DHC and the said cheques can be very well presented for encashment in case of default in payment as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments.
Ct. Case No 391/2021 M/s SIDDHIDATA RETAIL MARKETING PVT. LTD Vs. MS. AMAZE INDIA Page No. 16 of 19 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date:
2026.01.17 16:10:22 +0530
20. On the basis of above reasoning, it can be observed that firstly accused persons have failed to prove that the complainant had any knowledge of the transactions between Arbitz Pvt. Ltd. and accused firm. Further, they have failed to prove that the payment to the complainant shall be made only subject to receipt of payment from Arbitz Pvt. Ltd. Further, accused persons have failed to prove that they acted merely as mediator in the present transaction. While the accused persons admitted issuance of the cheque in question in favor of the complainant but they have failed to prove that the said cheques were not issued in discharge of legal debt/liability. No cogent evidence could be led by accused persons to the effect that they had no liability towards the cheques in question due on the date when cause of action arose in favor of complainant. Hence, they have failed to rebut the presumption arisen in favor of the complaint under section 118/139 NIA.
21. The cheque in question has been issued from the account of accused no. 1 i.e. Amaze India. The accused no. 1 has been represented by accused no. 2 for the purpose of trial of the present matter. The same defence has been pleaded for accused no. 1 also. Accused no. 3 denied signatures on the cheque in question and also the liability towards the complainant. However, no cogent evidence has been led by him to support his defences. In view of the above reasoning, he has failed to prove his defences and accordingly, the vicarious liability has been casted on him by virtue of s. 141 NIA since he was in charge of and responsible for Ct. Case No 391/2021 M/s SIDDHIDATA RETAIL MARKETING PVT. LTD Vs. MS.
AMAZE INDIA Page No. 17 of 19 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI MANGLA SHIVANGI Date: MANGLA 2026.01.17 16:10:26 +0530
the conduct of business of accused company. Further, accused no. 2 led his defence on his behalf as well as on behalf of accused no. 1, however, he has also failed miserably to establish his averments.
22. The complainant has based his case on documentary evidences. He has succeeded in proving the fact that the amount was advanced to the accused persons which has also been admitted to be received by accused persons. The complainant has succeeded in proving his case beyond reasonable doubt. While, the accused persons have failed to show non-existence of any legal debt or liability in favor of the complainant.
23. All the ingredients of s. 138 NIA has been duly fulfilled as the cheque in question was returned unpaid with the remarks 'drawer signature differ' and 'funds insufficient' which are duly covered within provisions of s.138 NIA. Thereafter, legal notice was sent to the accused persons within validity period and the same was also replied. Further, due to non-payment within limitation period has resulted in arising cause of action in favor of complainant. The accused persons had failed to prove the non existence of legal debt/ liability in favor of the complainant.
24. Accordingly accused no. 1 (M/s Amaze India) , accused no. 2 (Shamsher Hashmi) and accused no. 3 (Praveeen Thimappa Kotian) are hereby convicted for the offence under section 138 NIA.
Ct. Case No 391/2021 M/s SIDDHIDATA RETAIL MARKETING PVT. LTD Vs. MS. AMAZE INDIA Page No. 18 of 19 Digitally signed by SHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA Date: MANGLA 2026.01.17 16:10:33 +0530
25. Let the convict persons be heard on quantum of sentence
26. Let the copy of judgment be provided to convict persons free of cost Announced in the open Court on 17.01.2026.
Note : This judgment contains 19 pages and each page is signed by the undersigned.
Digitally signed bySHIVANGI SHIVANGI MANGLA MANGLA Date: 2026.01.17 16:10:45 +0530 (SHIVANGI MANGLA) JMFC (NI Act) -05, West Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 17.01.2026 Ct. Case No 391/2021 M/s SIDDHIDATA RETAIL MARKETING PVT. LTD Vs. MS. AMAZE INDIA Page No. 19 of 19