Delhi District Court
Ranjit Singh Purwaha vs . M/S Harsha Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. on 21 February, 2013
Ranjit Singh Purwaha Vs. M/s Harsha Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
CC No.7312/13
21.02.2013
Present: Complainant with counsel.
This court has passed a detailed order on 16.05.2012 in a case titled as Harish Chand Vs.
Saira Khatoon, CC No.6687/12 whereby it was observed that there is no necessity to tender the
affidavit and that exhibits mentioned in the affidavit are to be marked, initialed and dated by the
authority before whom affidavit has been sworn.
Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence alongwith documents exhibited by the
Oath Commissioner. The affidavit is marked as Mark-R for the purpose of identification.
I have gone through the record and after hearing the ld. counsel, I am satisfied that a case
U/s 138 r/w Section-141 NI Act has been made out against the accused. Let the accused No.1, 2,
3 and 4 be summoned through all available modes for 06.07.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
21.02.2013
Nambro Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D D Merchant Bankers Ltd. & Ors.
CC No.7284/13
21.02.2013
Present: AR of the Complainant with counsel.
This court has passed a detailed order on 16.05.2012 in a case titled as Harish Chand Vs.
Saira Khatoon, CC No.6687/12 whereby it was observed that there is no necessity to tender the
affidavit and that exhibits mentioned in the affidavit are to be marked, initialed and dated by the
authority before whom affidavit has been sworn.
AR of the Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence alongwith documents exhibited
by the Oath Commissioner. The affidavit is marked as Mark-R for the purpose of identification.
I have gone through the record and after hearing the ld. counsel, I am satisfied that a case
U/s 138 r/w Section-141 NI Act has been made out against the accused. Let the accused No.1, 2,
3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 be summoned through all available modes for 04.07.2013.
Ld. Counsel for the Complainant also wants to serve the summons upon the accused in
the court as the accused will be appearing in some other case on 06.04.2013. Let him do so.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
21.02.2013
Ms. Shashi Kapoor Vs. Deepak Behl
CC No.5131/10
21.02.2013
Statement of Ms. Shashi Kapoor, Complainant.
On S.A.
I, the above named Complainant do hereby state that the matter has been amicably settled
with the accused in full and final settlement in the present complaint case. Accused has given the
entire settled amount in cash to me. I have no further grievance against the accused as nothing
remains due towards the accused in the present complaint case. Therefore, the matter may be
allowed to be treated as compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
RO & AC
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
21.02.2013
Ms. Shashi Kapoor Vs. Deepak Behl
CC No.5131/10
21.02.2013
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Mother of the accused with Counsel.
The matter settled between the parties. Separate statement of the complainant recorded in
this respect. The matter stands compounded U/s 147 NI Act. Accused is acquitted of the charges.
Bail Bond and Surety Bond, if any, be discharged. File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
21.02.2013
Mohseen Qureshi Vs. Munnu
CC No.768/10
21.02.2013
Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
Accused in person.
An exemption application has been filed on behalf of the Complainant on the ground that
Complainant has to visit on alternative days for Dialysis of his wife.
Ld. counsel for the Complainant has moved an application under Contempt of Courts Act
against the accused and supplied a copy of the same to the accused.
Accused submits that he has paid some payments but cannot provide the exact details
right now, therefore, he is seeking time.
Adjourned to 13.05.2013 for further proceedings.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
21.02.2013
S.P. Gulati Vs. Ajit Singh
CC No.4566/10
21.02.2013
Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
Accused with counsel.
Sh. Chaitanya Kaul from HDFC Bank. Sh. Kaul submits that he has brought details of
Cheque No.239975.
Ld. counsel for the accused, however, submits that the accused wants information about
duration of operation of bank account.
I consider that the fault lies with the accused himself as no such requirement was ever
proposed by the accused by any application or even by oral. The witness is discharged. It appears
that sufficient delay has been caused by the accused. As such no further opportunity can be given
on this count.
However, so far as the calling of the witness from the Income Tax Office is concerned, it
appears that Complainant had provided a wrong PAN number. Ld. counsel for the complainant
submits that complainant will provide the correct PAN number. However, since he is not well, he
has not come today. Ld. counsel for the complainant has also filed an exemption application
alongwith a copy of a medical paper. Ld. counsel for the Complainant has also filed his
Vakalatnama.
Let all the miscellaneous steps be taken by all the concerned sufficiently before the next
date whereupon summons be issued to the Income Tax Office for which details to be also
provided by the accused. It is clarified that no further opportunity will be given on any ground
whatsoever.
List on 08.05.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
21.02.2013
M/s Unique Farm Aids Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Umesh Kumar Yadav
CC No.6582/12
21.02.2013
Present: AR of the Complainant.
Summons sent by post received with a refusal. Such summons can be declared to be
served U/s 144(2) NI Act.
Let BW in the sum of Rs.10,000/- be issued against the accused for 25.06.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
21.02.2013
Vinod Kumar Kane Vs. Sanjay Soni Singh
CC No.7041/12
21.02.2013
Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
An exemption application has been filed on behalf of the Complainant on the ground that
he is not well.
Notice issued to the Respondent received back unserved.
Let fresh Notice be issued for 15.05.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
21.02.2013
Abbal Chand Vs. Sunder Singh Rana
CC No.2411/10
21.02.2013
Statement of Mr. Abbal Chand, Complainant, aged about 54 years, S/o Sh. Chhatar Singh, R/o H.No.474, Baba Faridpuri, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008 (recalled for further cross-examination).
XXXXX by Mr. F.K. Jha, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
On S.A. It is correct that a Petition U/s 13-B(1) of HMA has been filed by my daughter namely Sunita Vohra and her husband Raju Vohra jointly and the order of Ld. ADJ was that the Petition was dismissed as withdrawn as the parties have not settled their all disputes. The certified copy of the Petition and order of Ld. ADJ is Exh.RW1/4 (colly) (running into 14 pages). It is correct that prior to filing of the Petition U/s 13-B(1) HMA, my daughter Sunita Vohra has moved a petition U/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act against her husband and his relatives. The certified copy of this Petition is Exh.RW1/5 (colly) (running into 18 pages). It is correct that a complaint was made by my daughter on 26.03.2010 at PS : Anand Parbat which is Exh.RW1/6 (colly) (running into 2 pages). It is correct that my daughter Sunita Vohra also made a complaint dated 27.03.2010 at PS : Inder Puri which is Exh.RW1/7 (colly) (running into 2 pages). It is correct that I have made a complaint dated 12.08.2010 at PS : Patel Nagar which is Exh.RW1/8. It is correct that neither my daughter nor me has made any statement regarding the cheque amount or about the cheque in question before this hon'ble court in any complaint or in petition which are Exh.RW1/4 to Exh.RW1/8. It is correct that my daughter Sunita Vohra made a complaint before Jagriti Mahila Samiti in which she has stated that a cheque of Rs.40,000/- has not been returned by the accused to the Complainant. The photocopy of the said Notice of Jagriti Mahila Samiti is Mark-A. It is correct that the cheque amount is Rs.2,30,000/-. It is correct that my daughter has not mentioned about the cheque amount of Rs.2,30,000/- in the complaint filed with Jagriti Mahila Samiti. It is correct that I accompanied my daughter whenever she moved the above mentioned complaints and petitions either before the police station or before the hon'ble courts or before the Jagriti Mahila Samiti. I do not know about the educational qualifications of the accused. I do not know whether the accused can write and read in English language or not. It is correct that the name, date and amount written on the cheque in question was not written by the accused Sunder Singh Rana. (Vol. The said cheque was filled when it has been handed over to me by the accused and I do not know who has written the name, date and amount in figures and words on the said cheque). It is wrong to suggest that the said cheque was filled in at my instance by my person. I do not know about the complaint moved by the accused at PS :
Connaught Place on 25.03.2010 about the missing of cheques including cheque in question. The same is Exh.RW1/9. I received the cheque in question on 27/28.11.2009. I have presented the cheque in question in the year 2010. I do not remember the date and month of presentation of the said cheque. It is wrong to suggest that I received the cheque in question in the month of Marh/April-2010. I do not remember whether the accused had purchased/constructed any house. It is wrong to suggest that the accused has not taken any dowry from me in the marriage of my daughter with his brother-in-law. It is wrong to suggest that the accused has not taken any friendly loan from me at any point of time. It is correct that I did not make any payment to the accused by way of Cheque/Demand Draft. It is correct that I did not have Rs.2,30,000/- in my bank account at that time. (Vol. I have arranged the said amount from my relatives which I have advanced to the accused). It is correct that neither I received the amount by way of cheque/DD from my relatives nor I repaid the said amount by way of cheque/DD. (Vol. I received the said amount in cash and later on I repaid the said amount in cash to them). It is correct that I did not disclose the names of my relatives from whom I have arranged the amount of Rs.2,30,000/- in the present complaint U/s 138 NI Act nor in the Legal Demand Notice sent to the accused. It is correct that I did not mention the name of any relative in the list of witnesses filed alongwith the present complaint case. I did not file any evidence of these relatives till date before this hon'ble court. It is wrong to suggest that since I have not arranged the amount in question from my relatives to advance the same to the accused so I did not mention the name of any relatives as a witness upto this stage. I have not filed any document or bank statement of my relatives from whom I have the arranged the amount in question. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely or I have made a false complaint against the accused just to take revenge from him for the unhappy life of my daughter.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 21.02.2013 Statement of Mr. Abbal Chand, Complainant.
On S.A. I, the above named Complainant do hereby close my evidence.
RO & AC
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
21.02.2013
Abbal Chand Vs. Sunder Singh Rana
CC No.2411/10
21.02.2013
Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
Complainant further cross-examined. Discharged.
CE closed. Separate statement of Complainant recorded in this respect.
It appears that Ld. Revisional Court has also given one single opportunity for the defence.
In terms of Ld. Appellate Court order, one opportunity for the accused to lead defence evidence. As per Step-III of Guidelines laid down in Rajesh Aggarwal Vs. State & Anr. 171 (2010) DLT-51, list for defence evidence.
Summons be issued to both the official witnesses in defence. It is, however, clarified that no further opportunity will be given.
List on 09.05.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 21.02.2013 M/s Swift Shipping & Freight Logistics (P) Ltd. Vs. M/s Ridley Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
CC No.7242/13
21.02.2013
Present: AR of the Complainant with counsel.
This court has passed a detailed order on 16.05.2012 in a case titled as Harish Chand Vs. Saira Khatoon, CC No.6687/12 whereby it was observed that there is no necessity to tender the affidavit and that exhibits mentioned in the affidavit are to be marked, initialed and dated by the authority before whom affidavit has been sworn.
AR of the Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence alongwith documents exhibited by the Oath Commissioner. The affidavit is marked as Mark-R for the purpose of identification.
I have gone through the record and after hearing the ld. counsel, I am satisfied that a case U/s 138 r/w Section-141 NI Act has been made out against the accused. Let the accused No.1, 2 and 3 be summoned through all available modes for 04.06.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 21.02.2013 Mahabir Parsad Jain (HUF) & Anr. Vs. Ahimsa Mines & Minerals & Anr.
CC No.649/1021.02.2013 Statement of DW4 Mr. P.K. Roy, aged about 43 years, S/o Late Sh. Prafull Chand Roy, R/o Bye Lane No.3, House No.3, Pahar Toli, Kala Pahar, Guwahati-18, Assam. On S.A. I am Post Graduate in Political Science. I myself cannot say that I am most trusted employee of the Complainant. I can recognize the handwriting and signature of Complainant Sh. Mahabir Parsad Jain. I do not remember whether on all dates I was present in Guwahati court but on most of the dates I was present. The address mentioned in Power of Attorney is mine. At that time I was living at the said address in a rented house. From the year 2000 to 2004 I was the employee of Rara Brother Pvt. Ltd. and was drawing salary from them and I was looking after all the works of the company of all their group. I worked with them till the year 2008-2009. Now I am working with them in part time. Now I am having my own business as partner in the name and style of S.B. Gold, Pan Bazar, Guwahati, Assam. I came to know about Ahimsa Mines and Minerals Ltd. in the year 1998-1999. At that time there was some business dealing with the company. I came to know about the transaction between Mahabir Parsad Jain (HUF) and Nemi Chand Jain in the year 2001-2002 when statement of account came before me. I do not remember whether I have received any notice from Guwahati court or not in this case. I am not aware about the cash amount maintained at Jaipur by the Complainant. I maintained the accounts of the Complainant at Guwahati. I used to check the accounts of the Complainant but accounts were written by somebody else. I do not remember the names of the persons who used to write the accounts of the Complainant.
Examination in chief deferred for after lunch time.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 21.02.2013 Mahabir Parsad Jain (HUF) & Anr. Vs. Ahimsa Mines & Minerals & Anr.
CC No.649/1021.02.2013 Statement of DW4 Mr. P.K. Roy, aged about 43 years, S/o Late Sh. Prafull Chand Roy, R/o Bye Lane No.3, House No.3, Pahar Toli, Kala Pahar, Guwahati-18, Assam (recalled for further examination after lunch time).
On S.A. I came to know about the transaction between the Mahabir Parsad Jain (HUF) and Nemi Chand Jain after going through the record. The said record might have given to me by Mahabir Parsad Jain (HUF). I used to maintain the account books and the transactions made between Mahabir Parsad Jain (HUF) and Nemi Chand Jain were recorded in the account books. I have the knowledge about the legal demand notice sent by Mahabir Parsad Jain (HUF) and the same was sent to Nemi Chand Jain and Ahimsa Mines & Minerals. The notice was sent by Mahabir Parsad Jain (HUF), therefore, I do not have any knowledge why he has not submitted the copy of receipt relating to sending of the demand notice to Ahimsa Mines & Minerals alongwith complaint. There was no pressure upon me to file the present complaint from Mahabir Parsad Jain (HUF). The Income Tax Return of Mahabir Parsad Jain (HUF) was prepared by his Chartered Accountant. I had sent a FAX to the Narender Kumar Jain but I am not able to recollect the subject matter of any FAX.
Examination in chief deferred for want of time.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 21.02.2013 Mahabir Parsad Jain (HUF) & Anr. Vs. Ahimsa Mines & Minerals & Anr.
CC No.649/10
21.02.2013
Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
Accused with counsel Sh. Raj Kumar Raghav.
Ld. counsel for the accused has filed two applications and supplied the copy of the same to the Complainant.
Ld. counsel for the accused has also filed additional arguments in respect of the application of the accused earlier moved U/s 258 Cr.P.C.
I have gone through all the arguments and application moved by the accused U/s 258 Cr.P.C. r/w Section-263(h) and 264 Cr.P.C. I have also heard both the sides. It appears that considerable reliance has been placed from the accused side on the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in 2000 Cri.L.J.2738. I have gone through this judgment also.
In the entire facts and circumstances, I consider that in a proceeding instituted upon a complaint, Section-258 Cr.P.C. would not have any applicability. I cannot do any better than to quote Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of judgment in John Thomas vs Dr. K. Jagadeesan 2001 SCC (Crl) 974 held as under:
"Summons cases are generally of two categories. Those instituted upon complaints and those instituted otherwise than upon complaints. The latter category would include cases based on police reports. Section 258 of the Code is intended to cover those cases belonging to one category alone i.e. "summons cases instituted otherwise than upon complaints". The segment separated at the last part of the section by the words "and in any other case" is only a sub- category or division consisting of "summons cases instituted otherwise than upon complaints". That sub- category is not intended to cover all summons cases other than those instituted on police report. In fact, Section 258 vivisects only "summons cases instituted otherwise than on complaints" into two divisions. One division consists of cases in which no evidence of material witness was recorded. The section permits the court to acquit the accused prematurely only in those summons cases instituted otherwise than on complaints wherein the evidence of material witnesses was recorded. But the power of court to discharge an accused at midway stage is restricted to those cases instituted otherwise than on complaints wherein no material witness was examined at all. The upshot of the above is that Section 258 of the Code has no application to cases instituted upon complaints. The present is a case which was instituted on complaint. Hence the endeavour made by the accused to find help from Section 258 of the Code is of no avail."
Therefore, this application cannot be maintained.
So far as the mentioning of Section-263(h) and Section-264 Cr.P.C. is concerned, the same has no relevance at all at present. Ld. counsel for the Complainant submits that in the Guwahati Courts one representative of the accused company was appearing and even he was allowed to be on bail of Rs.10,000/-. It, however, appears that the said authorized representative of the accused company has never appeared in this court and frivolous applications have been filed by the Nemi Chand Jain without any authority whatsoever. Any proceeding against the company has to go as per requirement of Section-305 Cr.P.C. and not otherwise. Accused Nemi Chand Jain himself submits that he has not filed any Resolution or anything authorizing himself to represent the accused company. The application moved U/s 258 r/w 263(h) and 264 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
Complainant may file reply to the applications moved by the accused.
Today two defence witnesses are present i.e. P.K. Roy and Narender Kumar Jain. Ld. counsel for the accused submits that he will examine the witnesses. He further submits that he is withdrawing the condition mentioned in his application about the fact that accused will be examining the witnesses after his own examination. With such submission of ld. counsel for the accused, let the witnesses be examined. Witness P.K. Roy has been examined in chief in part. Ld. counsel for the accused has taken more than sufficient time to examine this witness. Ld. counsel for the accused has been treating the witness as if the witness is of the complainant and he has been cross-examining the witness. But the same has not been allowed. The examination in chief is now deferred.
Diet Money of the witnesses to be paid by the accused today itself. Details to be provided by the witnesses to the accused and Diet Money to be paid against acknowledgment.
Witnesses to be called. As prayed by the witnesses, let the Diet Money to be deposited by the accused in advance for the next date.
Witnesses submit that they have given the details for the Diet Money for today.
Let the matter be listed on 22.03.2013 at request of both the sides.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
21.02.2013
M/s Rajshree Rasayan Udyog Ltd. Vs. Pabba Upendra
CC No.7331/13
21.02.2013
Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
Present: AR of the Complainant with counsel.
This court has passed a detailed order on 16.05.2012 in a case titled as Harish Chand Vs. Saira Khatoon, CC No.6687/12 whereby it was observed that there is no necessity to tender the affidavit and that exhibits mentioned in the affidavit are to be marked, initialed and dated by the authority before whom affidavit has been sworn.
AR of the Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence alongwith documents exhibited by the Oath Commissioner. The affidavit is marked as Mark-R for the purpose of identification.
I have gone through the record and after hearing the ld. counsel, I am satisfied that a case U/s 138 NI Act has been made out against the accused. Let the accused be summoned through all available modes for 04.06.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
21.02.2013
M/s Rajshree Rasayan Udyog Ltd. Vs. Amarnath Singh
CC No.7329/13
21.02.2013
Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
Present: AR of the Complainant with counsel.
This court has passed a detailed order on 16.05.2012 in a case titled as Harish Chand Vs. Saira Khatoon, CC No.6687/12 whereby it was observed that there is no necessity to tender the affidavit and that exhibits mentioned in the affidavit are to be marked, initialed and dated by the authority before whom affidavit has been sworn.
AR of the Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence alongwith documents exhibited by the Oath Commissioner. The affidavit is marked as Mark-R for the purpose of identification.
I have gone through the record and after hearing the ld. counsel, I am satisfied that a case U/s 138 NI Act has been made out against the accused. Let the accused be summoned through all available modes for 04.06.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 21.02.2013 M/s Indogulf Cropscience Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Umesh Chandra CC No.7330/13 21.02.2013 Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
Present: AR of the Complainant with counsel.
This court has passed a detailed order on 16.05.2012 in a case titled as Harish Chand Vs. Saira Khatoon, CC No.6687/12 whereby it was observed that there is no necessity to tender the affidavit and that exhibits mentioned in the affidavit are to be marked, initialed and dated by the authority before whom affidavit has been sworn.
AR of the Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence alongwith documents exhibited by the Oath Commissioner. The affidavit is marked as Mark-R for the purpose of identification.
I have gone through the record and after hearing the ld. counsel, I am satisfied that a case U/s 138 NI Act has been made out against the accused. Let the accused be summoned through all available modes for 04.06.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
21.02.2013
Varun Bahety Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr.
CC No.6866/12
21.02.2013
Present: AR of the Complainant with counsel.
This court has passed a detailed order on 16.05.2012 in a case titled as Harish Chand Vs. Saira Khatoon, CC No.6687/12 whereby it was observed that there is no necessity to tender the affidavit and that exhibits mentioned in the affidavit are to be marked, initialed and dated by the authority before whom affidavit has been sworn.
AR of the Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence alongwith documents exhibited by the Oath Commissioner. The affidavit is marked as Mark-R for the purpose of identification.
I have gone through the record and after hearing the ld. counsel, I am satisfied that a case U/s 138 NI Act has been made out against the accused. Let the accused Anil Kumar be summoned through all available modes for 05.06.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
21.02.2013
Varun Bahety Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr.
CC No.6867/12
21.02.2013
Present: AR of the Complainant with counsel.
This court has passed a detailed order on 16.05.2012 in a case titled as Harish Chand Vs. Saira Khatoon, CC No.6687/12 whereby it was observed that there is no necessity to tender the affidavit and that exhibits mentioned in the affidavit are to be marked, initialed and dated by the authority before whom affidavit has been sworn.
AR of the Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence alongwith documents exhibited by the Oath Commissioner. The affidavit is marked as Mark-R for the purpose of identification.
I have gone through the record and after hearing the ld. counsel, I am satisfied that a case U/s 138 NI Act has been made out against the accused. Let the accused Anil Kumar be summoned through all available modes for 05.06.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 21.02.2013 M/s Bharat Insecticides Ltd. Vs. Thoriya Nikhil Mukeshbhai CC No.7328/13 21.02.2013 Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
Present: AR of the Complainant.
This court has passed a detailed order on 16.05.2012 in a case titled as Harish Chand Vs. Saira Khatoon, CC No.6687/12 whereby it was observed that there is no necessity to tender the affidavit and that exhibits mentioned in the affidavit are to be marked, initialed and dated by the authority before whom affidavit has been sworn.
AR of the Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence alongwith documents exhibited by the Oath Commissioner. The affidavit is marked as Mark-R for the purpose of identification.
I have gone through the record and after hearing the ld. counsel, I am satisfied that a case U/s 138 NI Act has been made out against the accused. Let the accused be summoned through all available modes for 05.06.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
21.02.2013
M/s Bharat Insecticides Ltd. Vs. Bagal Sambhaji
CC No.7327/13
21.02.2013
Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
Present: AR of the Complainant.
This court has passed a detailed order on 16.05.2012 in a case titled as Harish Chand Vs. Saira Khatoon, CC No.6687/12 whereby it was observed that there is no necessity to tender the affidavit and that exhibits mentioned in the affidavit are to be marked, initialed and dated by the authority before whom affidavit has been sworn.
AR of the Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence alongwith documents exhibited by the Oath Commissioner. The affidavit is marked as Mark-R for the purpose of identification.
I have gone through the record and after hearing the ld. counsel, I am satisfied that a case U/s 138 NI Act has been made out against the accused. Let the accused be summoned through all available modes for 05.06.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
21.02.2013
M/s Bharat Insecticides Ltd. Vs. Ram Prasad Bairagi
CC No.7326/13
21.02.2013
Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
Present: AR of the Complainant.
This court has passed a detailed order on 16.05.2012 in a case titled as Harish Chand Vs. Saira Khatoon, CC No.6687/12 whereby it was observed that there is no necessity to tender the affidavit and that exhibits mentioned in the affidavit are to be marked, initialed and dated by the authority before whom affidavit has been sworn.
AR of the Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence alongwith documents exhibited by the Oath Commissioner. The affidavit is marked as Mark-R for the purpose of identification.
I have gone through the record and after hearing the ld. counsel, I am satisfied that a case U/s 138 NI Act has been made out against the accused. Let the accused be summoned through all available modes for 05.06.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 21.02.2013