Delhi District Court
M/S Daulat Ram & Sons (Rbi Group) ... vs . Mohit Wadhwa on 10 October, 2012
M/s Daulat Ram & Sons (RBI Group) Jewellers Vs. Mohit Wadhwa CC No.4069/10 10.10.2012
Present: None.
Summons unserved whereas Process Server has tried to serve the summons at four addresses provided by the complainant.
Fresh summons be only issued if fresh address is filed by the complainant for 02.02.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.10.2012 M/s Aggarwal Machinery Spares & Tools Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Galaxy Hardware Co.
CC No.2323/10
10.10.2012
Present: AR of the complainant.
Accused absent.
NBW for the last date is received back.
I have perused the report. The same is showing a clear attempt on the part of the accused to avoid the warrant. Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. be issued against the accused.
It further appears that notice to surety was duly served but surety was not present on the last date before the Ld. Link MM. Clearly surety does not want to justify her sufficient cause required U/s 446(1) Cr.P.C. Pertinently the Surety is the wife of the accused. In such circumstances, let a Warrant of Attachment be issued against the Surety for recovery of the bond amount. NBW be also issued against the accused.
List on 20.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.10.2012 Dinesh Negi Vs. Dilbagh Singh CC No.6510/12 10.10.2012 Present: None.
BW duly executed.
Be awaited for the accused.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
10.10.2012
At 02.20 p.m.
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused absent.
NBW be issued against the accused for 24.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.10.2012 M/s Harjase Mobiles Mall (P) Ltd. Vs. Munish Saini CC No.5807/11 10.10.2012 Present: AR of the complainant.
There is no compliance of the last order.
Be complied with for 16.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.10.2012 Jitender Singh Vs. M/s G.P.R. Housing Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
CC No.1650/1010.10.2012 Present: None.
Notice on complainant duly served.
Notice on SSP duly served.
Notice on SHO duly served received back with a report that they have served the notice on the SSP, Vishakhapatnam.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
10.10.2012
At 02.55 p.m.
Present: None.
No report has been received from any person. It, however, appears that complainant himself is not interested in prosecuting the present case as no one has been appearing on his behalf for last several dates. Even notice has been duly served on the complainant. Despite that on one is present on his behalf today also. State should not be burdened with such private litigations.
The complaint is dismissed. A direction be, however, issued to the concerned SHO to obtain all the earlier processes from concerned SSP and to file the same within one month from today. Whenever, processes are returned by the SHO, they shall be tagged by the office with the file.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
10.10.2012
Ajay Maheshwari Vs. Raj Pal Sharma
CC No.6775/12
10.10.2012
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Forfeit to be deposited by the complainant at the earliest.
List on 15.10.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.10.2012 Brij Bhushan Attri Vs. Anand Ballabh CC No.6154/11 10.10.2012 Present: Complainant in person.
Accused absent.
NBW unexecuted with a report left the address. The same address was mentioned by the accused in his bail bond. Clearly accused is deliberately hiding himself. As such Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. be issued against the accused. A Notice to Surety be also issued for 19.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.10.2012 M/s Juhie India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Poonam Daggar CC No.6548/A 10.10.2012 Statement of Mr. S.B. Singh, Ld. Counsel for the Complainant company. Without Oath.
I, the above named counsel for the complainant company do hereby state that I have the instructions from the complainant company to withdraw the present four complaint case against the accused since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties in the present complaint case with respect to the cheques in question. Accused has made the entire settled amount of Rs.34,410/- to the complainant company. Complainant company has 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 10.10.2012 M/s Bharat Insecticides Ltd. Vs. Raghavendra C.S. CC No.6741/12 10.10.2012 Statement of Mr. Mohan Chander, AR of the Complainant company. On S.A. I, the above named AR of the complainant company do hereby state that the matter has been amicably settled with the accused in the present complaint case with respect to the cheques in question. Accused has made the entire settled amount to the complainant company. Complainant company has 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 10.10.2012 M/s Bharat Insecticides Ltd. Vs. Ms. Kalpana D. Harale CC No.3574/10 10.10.2012 Statement of Mr. Mohan Chander, AR of the Complainant company. On S.A. I, the above named AR of the complainant company do hereby state that the matter has been amicably settled with the accused in the present complaint case with respect to the cheques in question. Accused has made the entire settled amount to the complainant company. Complainant company has 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 10.10.2012 Ravinder Vs. Deepak Kumar CC No.1486/10 10.10.2012 Statement of Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the Complainant. Without Oath.
I, the above named counsel for the complainant do hereby state that the present complaint case has been amicably settled between the parties with respect to the cheque in question. Accused has made the entire settled amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant. Complainant has 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 10.10.2012 M/s Juhie India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Poonam Daggar CC No.6548/A 10.10.2012 Present: Ld. Counsel for the complainant company.
The matter is settled.
Separate statement of ld. counsel recorded in this respect.
The matter stands compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
Put up before the Lok Adalat to be held on 13.10.2012 for final disposal.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.10.2012 Sandeep Kumar Vs. Prakash A. Trivedi CC No.750/10 10.10.2012 Present: Complainant in person.
Accused absent.
There is no compliance of the last order.
Be complied with for 31.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
10.10.2012
Surender Mohan Gupta Vs. Pramod
CC No.4317/10
10.10.2012
Present: Both the parties in person.
They want a passover for want of counsels.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.10.2012 At 12.55 p.m. Present: Complainant with proxy counsel.
Accused in person.
Accused is again seeking passover for want of counsel.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.10.2012 At 01.15 p.m. Present: Complainant with proxy counsel.
Accused with proxy counsel.
Ld. Proxy counsel for the accused is seeking adjournment on the ground that they propose to file a petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to challenge the order of Ld. ASJ and also orders of this court.
It, however, appears that more than sufficient opportunities have been given to the accused. The Revision Petition filed by the accused against the order rejecting his application has already been dismissed by the Ld. ASJ vide his order dated 21.08.2012. Opportunity was also available with the accused to lead defence evidence but even he failed to do so. The court can only give opportunity which was duly given to the accused. At each and every stage accused has delayed the matter by his conduct. On the last date the last opportunity was given to the accused to advance arguments. Even complainant has already been heard. Even the entire conduct of the accused has not been satisfactory during the proceeding. Even today repeated passover has been sought by the accused for want of counsel but the counsel for the accused has not appeared and only ld. proxy counsel appeared and that too with a request for adjournment on the ground that they propose to file a petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi after removing the objections raised by the registry therein.
In the entire facts and circumstances, I am unable to give any further opportunity to the accused.
Let the matter be listed for pronouncement of judgment on 12.10.2012.
Ld. counsel for the accused shall, however, be at liberty to advance arguments or to file written arguments on or before the next date.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.10.2012 M/s Aayatak Vs. B. Bethuraj CC No.2395/10 10.10.2012 Present: Complainant in person.
Accused absent.
NBW unexecuted.
Fresh NBW be only issued if complainant provides complete and detailed address of the accused.
List on 20.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.10.2012 M/s Jitendra Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satish Jain CC No.6462/12 10.10.2012 Present: An Employee of the complainant with counsel.
Accused with counsel.
Accused has deposited the cost with DLSA. Receipt taken on record.
Accused is admitted on bail subject to furnishing of bail bond and Surety bond to the tune of Rs.20,000/-. Furnished. Accepted.
At request, matter be sent to Mediation Cell for tomorrow i.e. 11.10.2012.
Regular date is 30.10.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
10.10.2012
Narender Marwah Vs. Hemant Sharma
CC No.6186/11
10.10.2012
Present: Complainant in person.
Counsel for the accused.
At their request of passover, matter be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.10.2012 At 01.10 p.m. Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
Accused has filed an application for summoning of a witness.
Let the witness be summoned on taking of all necessary steps by the accused.
Accused has also filed an application U/s 315 Cr.P.C. for his own examination as a witness. However, ld. counsel for the accused is seeking an adjournment on the ground that accused is not in a good condition as his father is hospitalized.
List on 02.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.10.2012 M/s Rastriya Mahila Kosh Vs. Tribal Rural Development Organization & Ors.
CC No.6813/1210.10.2012 Present: Clerk of the ld. counsel for the complainant.
Such appearance is not acceptable.
The clerk has filed an exemption application on behalf of AR of the complainant.
By way of last opportunity matter is adjourned.
Complainant to make up the deficiencies in court fee within two days.
List on 31.10.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.10.2012 Ravinder Vs. Deepak Kumar CC No.1486/10 10.10.2012 Present: Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Accused with counsel.
The matter is settled.
Separate statement of ld. counsel for the complainant recorded in this respect.
Matter stands compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
Put up before the Lok Adalat to be held on 13.10.2012 for final disposal.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
10.10.2012
Pawan Kumar Vs. Balbir Singh
CC No.5023/10
10.10.2012
Present: None for the complainant.
Accused in person.
Notice issued to the complainant received with a report already left the address.
Accused submits that he has brought Rs.20,000/- to be given to the complainant. However, no one is present on behalf of the complainant.
Let a Notice be issued to the ld. counsel for the complainant.
Interim Order to continue.
List on 30.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.10.2012 Rajesh Vs. Gadrab Sain CC No.6053/11, 6054/11, 6053/11 & 6052/11 10.10.2012 Present: Parties in person.
These are four connected matters.
They are seeking some more time to settle the matter.
List on 01.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.10.2012 Amrit Lal Jain Vs. Mahesh CC No.1581/10 10.10.2012 Present: None for the parties.
Constable Fazal Ahmed is present. He submits that he had executed the process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. on 20.06.2012. It appears that date of appearance written in the process is 18.07.2012. Clearly mandatory 30 days time has not been provided. Constable submits that this was his first process U/s 82 Cr.P.C., therefore, he could not execute the process in appropriate manner.
Let fresh Process be issued U/s 82 Cr.P.C. against the accused on 21.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.10.2012 M/s Bharat Insecticides Ltd. Vs. Ms. Kalpana D. Harale CC No.3574/10 10.10.2012 Present: AR of the complainant company.
The matter is settled.
Separate statement of AR recorded in this respect.
The matter stands compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
Put up the matter before Lok Adalat to be held on 13.10.2012 for final disposal.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.10.2012 M/s Bharat Insecticides Ltd. Vs. Raghavendra C.S. CC No.6741/12 10.10.2012 Present: AR of the complainant company.
The matter is settled.
Separate statement of AR recorded in this respect.
The matter stands compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
Put up the matter before Lok Adalat to be held on 13.10.2012 for final disposal.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.10.2012 Raja Ram & Co. Vs. P-Tex Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. & Ors.
CC No.393/1010.10.2012 Statement of CW1 Mr. Jinender Kumar Jain, AR of the complainant (recalled for further cross-examination).
XXXXX by Mr. Dinesh Singh Choudhary, Ld. Counsel for the accused company. On S.A. No other Power of Attorney except Exh.CW1/1 was prepared or executed on 08.05.2008. It is correct that there is difference between Special Power of Attorney and General Power of Attorney. The word of Special Power of Attorney has been mentioned in document Exh.CW1/1.
Q. I put it to you that you have not been given any authority to depose in the court by way of Power of Attorney Exh.CW1/1. What do you have to say ? Objected to by ld. counsel for the complainant on the ground that this a question of legal definition which can be argued by the ld. counsel for the accused and cannot be answered by any layman. Ld. counsel for the accused, however, submits that the question pertains to the contents of the document. (Heard. Objection sustained).
I know the accused No.1 company for the last 14-15 years. I have visited many times at the office of accused No.1 company situated at Ansari Road, Darya Ganj as well as at Second Floor of Prakash Banquet Hall, Darya Ganj, New Delhi but I do not recollect the visits. I do not recollect the exact date, month and year of my last visit at the office of accused No.1 company.
Q. I put it to you who advanced the loan as alleged and to whom and where the alleged loan was given ?
Ans. The alleged loan was given by the complainant through me and the same was advanced to accused No.2 in the name of accused No.1 at my office at 2396, Chhatta Shahji, Chawri Bazar, Delhi.
The total amount of loan of Rs.20 lacs was advanced in one go by two cheques of Rs.10 lacs each. No document was executed in respect of alleged loan. There was no Board Resolution of accused No.1 company in respect of advancing the loan to the accused No.1 as alleged by me. I or complainant did not ask to show or bring the Resolution of Board of Directors of accused No.1 company in respect of advancing the loan as alleged by me. There was no letter or document in respect of consent of accused No. 5 i.e. Sunil Kumar Jain to seek/advance the alleged loan in favour of accused No.1. I had made my visit at the office of accused No.1 prior to advancing the alleged loan but I do not recollect the exact date, month and year. There was no dealing between the complainant or accused No.1 at any point of time. I do not remember how many times I made my visit at the office of accused No.1 prior to advancing the alleged loan. I do not remember why I made my such visits at the office accused No.1. At the time of advancing the alleged loan I had knowledge about the Directors of the accused No.1. (Vol. One document i.e. Mark- X1 was provided by accused No.2 to me). It is correct that the names of the Directors of accused No.1 have not been mentioned in the document i.e. Mark-X1. (Vol. The said document is bearing the signature of the Directors). I have not seen the accused No.5 i.e. Sunil Kumar Jain signing and writing. It is correct that there is only signature of the person in the document Mark-X1 and not bearing any name of any person. I have no documents pertaining to the accused No.1 company with regard to its Directors. It is correct neither I made any demand for such document nor the same was provided.
It is correct that there is no document on record to show that the loan as alleged was confirmed and signed by accused No.5 as mentioned at Para-3 of my affidavit Exh.CW1/A. (Vol. The said fact has been mentioned wrongly in this Para since the same has been mentioned in other 13 cases). It is correct that there is neither any consent letter nor letter regarding confirmation of the alleged loan on behalf of accused No.5. The the copy of cheques Mark-X was obtained by me from Union Bank of India, Chawri Bazar Branch, Delhi. I do not recollect the exact date, month and year when I obtained the said cheques Mark-X. The same was provided by the Bank Manager on my oral request. I have no knowledge that the said copy of the cheques cannot be provided by the bank on my oral request.
I have gone through the contents of the additional affidavit which is Exh.CW1/A5, which bears my signatures at Point A and B. The date of the cheque mentioned as 07.12.2003 has been wrongly mentioned in Para-3 of the said affidavit which is otherwise 17.12.2003. The said affidavit was prepared by my counsel on my instructions. The fact about mentioning of wrong date did not come into my knowledge at the relevant point of time. It is correct that the averments regarding cheques bearing date 07.12.2003 as mentioned in my affidavit Exh.CW1/A5 has not been mentioned in the complaint. The fact about the cheques and its dates as mentioned in the Para-3 of my affidavit i.e. Exh.CW1/A5 was told by me to my counsel orally. (Vol. The date has been mentioned wrongly). I did not provided any document in respect of advancing the loan to the accused No.1 as alleged at the time of preparing of the complaint or sending of notice. However, I had provided the document in that regard to my counsel only at the time of preparing the additional affidavit Exh.CW1/A5 to my counsel. It is correct that the copy of cheques Mark- X are bearing the date as 16.12.2003. It is correct that the alleged loan was not given personally to accused No.5 Sunil Kumar Jain. I do not know the fact that accused No.5 Sunil Kumar Jain had resigned from accused No.1 company on 29.12.2004 as Director. I do not know about the fact that the dispute has been arisen amongst the Directors being family members of accused No.1 and thereafter an Arbitral Award was passed on 29.10.2007. I implicated the accused No.5 in the present case being a Director of the accused No.1 only in the present case. It is wrong to suggest that accused No.5 has been falsely implicated in the present case being no liability on his part. It is wrong to suggest that the loan as alleged by me was never advanced and the present case has been falsely and malafidely filed by me. I never raised any demand of the alleged loan by way of any letter. (Vol. I orally made demand through telephone and personally). I have no details or proof to make demand through telephone as alleged by me. It is wrong to suggest that since no loan as alleged by me was advanced, therefore, the question of raising demand of the said loan was arisen. I made telephone call to accused No.5 to repay the alleged loan amount. I do not recollect the telephone number of accused No.5 i.e. Sunil Kumar Jain and even I have no proof about the telephone number of Accused No.5 i.e. Sunil Kumar Jain. It is wrong to suggest that since accused No.5 was never involved in the alleged loan, therefore, I did not make any demand personally or on telephone from accused No.5. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. XXXXX by Mr. Akhil Yadav, Ld. Proxy counsel for accused No.4.
At his request, cross-examination deferred as ld. main counsel is not available. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.10.2012