Delhi District Court
Gurdev Singh vs . Ms. Asha Rani on 6 October, 2012
Gurdev Singh Vs. Ms. Asha Rani CC No.4381/10 06.10.2012
Statement of Gurdev Singh, Complainant (recalled for further cross-examination on the application U/s 145(2) NI Act).
XXXXX by Mr. Durgesh Rao, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
On S.A. It is correct that Exh.C-1/1 is the photocopy. I have not stated either in my complaint nor in my affidavit that mutual settlement was signed in the presence of Mahmood Khan. I do not remember whether I have stated the fact of signing in the presence of Mahmood Khan in the affidavit in evidence before the court of Sh. Inderjeet Singh, ADJ (South). I have not stated anything regarding the presence of Mahmood Khan in my cross-examination held on 23.11.2011, 16.04.2012 and 29.05.2012. The mutual settlement Exh.C-1/1 neither in my handwriting nor it was written in my presence. (Vol. The said settlement was written by Mahmood Khan on the instructions of Asha Rani Singhal and Mr. Jaspal Singh was also present there at that time).
Q. On 29.05.2012 you had stated on oath before the Ld. ADJ (South) Sh. Inderjeet Singh that you do not know who had written the Exh.C-1/1. Today you have stated that the said settlement had been written by Mahmood Khan on the instructions of Asha Rani Singh in the presence of my brother. What do you have to say ?
Ans. Both the statements are correct as earlier I did not know but later on enquiry I found it was written by Mahmood Khan on the instructions of Asha Rani Singhal. Q. When did you come to know about the handwriting on the Exh.C-1/1 ? Ans. That I came to know about the handwriting after the cross-examination been completed on 29.05.2012.
It is correct that prior to that I had no knowledge regarding the handwriting on Exh.C-1/1 and cheques Exh.C-1/2 and Exh.C-1/3. It is wrong to suggest that the present complaint has been illegally filed by me on the basis of stolen cheques illegally in the retention of my brother Jaspal Singh, Ex- Accountants Malai Kumar Garai and Mahmood Khan. I do not remember all the names of the employees while I was working with the company in the year 2006 but I can tell the names of some of the employees i.e. Ms. Neelam, Mr. Ranjit, Ms. Anju and Mr. Prabhu. It is correct that Malai Kumar Garai was working as Accountant in the company. (Vol. He was the Senior Accountant). I do not know that Malai Kumar Garai had gone to his native place in July 2006 and returned to join his duties or not. I cannot say whether the company has employed any Accountant or not from July 2006 till December 2006. (Vol. Many Accountants used to come and go in the company but I do not remember the names of any of them). It is wrong to suggest that Animesh Singhal used to look after accounts alongwith his father Ravinder Singhal. (Vol. Only Ravinder Singhal and Asha Singhal would have been looking the accounts from July 2006 till December 2006 and onwards). I do not know whether the Mahmood Khan was appointed as Accountant after Malai Kamar Garai in the year 2007 in M/s Shruti Fasteners Ltd. as the same was not in my presence. It is wrong to suggest that whether Jaspal Singh and myself had renumerated Mahmood Khan and he in reciprocal used to provide the business secrets of M/s Shruti Fasteners Ltd. It is correct that Asha Rani Singhal from her personal bank accounts had given a sum of Rs.9,75,000/- to my brother Jaspal Singh and myself. (Vol. Brother Jaspal Singh and myself had received Rs.13 lacs from Asha Rani Singhal and her daughter Shruti Singhal and out of the said money Rs.3,25,000/- was spent by me on the registration of a flat in the name of Asha Rani Singhal and the remaining amount i.e. Rs.9,75,000/- was given as partial payment towards commission in the accounts of M/s Shruti Fasteners Ltd.). Q. The third person or Director of the company is not liable to pay any debt of the company from their personal accounts. What do you have to say ?
Ans. I do not know.
I also do not know about my liability and the liability of my company M/s Shrutiraj Fasteners Pvt. Ltd. whether they are same or not. The Chartered Accountant of my company M/s Shrutiraj Fasteners Pvt. Ltd. regularly comes to our office and we all filing the Annual Returns of the company regularly. It is wrong to suggest that M/s Shrutiraj Fasteners Pvt. Ltd. is not filing its Annual Returns with Income Tax Department. I have no idea about the filing of the Annual Returns before the Registrar of Companies which is mandatory though I am Director of the company. I have no knowledge that we have not filed the Annual Return before the Registrar of Companies (ROC) from the year 2008 till now. It is wrong to suggest that the company M/s Shruti Fasteners Ltd. does not owe any amount to me and my brother Jaspal Singh. It is wrong to suggest that Asha Rani Singhal has given the sum of Rs.9,75,000/- as loan to me and my brother. It is wrong to suggest that due to the settlement Exh.C-1/1 is a forged and fabricated document. It is wrong to suggest that either me or my brother Jaspal Singh or Malai Kumar Garai and Mahmood Khan in collusion and with common intention with each other had forged and fabricated the alleged settlement Exh.C-1/1. It is wrong to suggest that myself or my brother Jaspal Singh in collusion with others have tried to encash the cheques illegally in our retention. My affidavit in evidence was prepared at my instance by my counsel at his Chamber in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. My affidavit was attested in the premises of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. I do not know who had accompanied me to the Oath Commissioner for getting the affidavit attested. I cannot tell the name of the person who had identified me at the time of attestation of the affidavit. It is wrong to suggest that Sh. Sahil Sharma had identified me on my affidavit at the time of its attestation confronted by ld. counsel for the accused at Point C of the affidavit. It is wrong to suggest that I illegally tried to encash the cheques i.e. Exh.C-1/2 and Exh.C-1/3. I have never tried to enquire from the bank when the bank accounts were closed by the company M/s Shruti Fasteners Ltd. It is wrong to suggest that that no debt owed by Asha Rani Singhal or M/s Shruti Fasteners Ltd. to me and my brother Jaspal Singh. (Vol. Debt is owed by M/s Shruti Fasteners Ltd.). It is wrong to suggest that the cheques Exh.C-1/2 and Exh.C-1/3 are the stolen cheques. It is further wrong to suggest that the said cheques were illegally endorsed by me in collusion with my brother Jaspal Singh, Mahmood Khan and Malai Kumar Garai (all ex-employees of M/s Shruti Fasteners Ltd. It is wrong to suggest that the cheques Exh.C-1/2 and Exh.C-1/3 were illegally tried to be encashed by me in order to cause wrongful loss and defraud your ex-employers. It is wrong to suggest that I have filed the false and frivolous complaint. It is further wrong to suggest that I have tried to mislead this hon'ble court by using forged and fabricated documents as genuine.
Q. How many times have you visited your Lawyer Sh. Sarabjeet Sharma before filing of the case and for what reasons ?
Ans. Since he is my old acquaintance and I had contacted him after dishonour of cheques 3-4 times. I might have met with Sh. Sarabjeet Sharma in the middle of June 2009 regarding the dishonoured cheques. I had met the counsel again after 2-3 days of the first visit for sending the legal demand notice when Asha Rani Singhal did not respond to my phone calls. Again said Asha Rani Singhal also refused to pay the amount of the dihonoured cheque. The legal demand notice was sent by my counsel on 17.06.2009. Again I had met with my counsel regarding the reply of the legal demand notice.
I do not remember whether Asha Rani Singhal had given a common reply to the legal demand notice issued by my counsel Sh. Sarabjeet Sharma. It is wrong to suggest that I have filed the forged and frivolous complaint. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely to attain my illegal goals in collusion with my brother Jaspal Singh, Mahmood Khan and Malai Kumar Garai.
RO & AC
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
06.10.2012
Gurdev Singh Vs. Ms. Asha Rani
CC No.4381/10
06.10.2012
Statement of Gurdev Singh, Complainant.
On S.A.
I hereby close my evidence.
RO & AC
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
06.10.2012
M/s Aimil Pharmaceuticals India Ltd. Vs. Chander Shekhar Thakur & Anr.
CC No.6453/12
06.10.2012
Statement of Mr. Hitesh Vijh, 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 full and final settlement in the present complaint case with respect to the cheque in question. Accused has already made the settlement amount of Rs. 30,144/- to the complainant company. I have no further grievance against the accused and 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 06.10.2012 M/s Aimil Pharmaceuticals India Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Kumar Singh & Anr.
CC No.6967/1206.10.2012 Statement of Mr. Hitesh Vijh, 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 full and final settlement in the present complaint case with respect to the cheque in question. Accused has already made the settlement amount of Rs9,990/- to the complainant company. I have no further grievance against the accused and 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 06.10.2012 M/s Aimil Pharmaceuticals India Ltd. Vs. Chander Shekhar Thakur & Anr.
CC No.6453/12
06.10.2012
Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
The matter is settled.
Separate statement of AR is 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 06.10.2012 M/s Aimil Pharmaceuticals India Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Kumar Singh & Anr.
CC No.6967/12
06.10.2012
Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
The matter is settled.
Separate statement of AR is 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
06.10.2012
Sri Ram Srirangam Vs. Umesh Prasad
CC No.6262/1
06.10.2012
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused in person.
An exemption application has been filed on behalf of the complainant on the ground that complainant is a Teacher and is unable to come due to some personal difficulty.
Witness Navin Kumar from HDFC Bank, Officer Trade Finance, Old Rajender Nagar, New Delhi is present. However, he has not brought the record.
Ld. counsel for the complainant submits that the same person was present on the last date also but his name is wrongly noted as Ravi Kumar.
Navin Kumar accepted this position that he was present on the last date on behalf of HDFC bank. In such circumstances, the name in the last order be read as Navin Kumar instead of Ravi Kumar.
Ld. counsel for the complainant submits that even on the last date the witness had not brought the relevant record. The witness Navin Kumar submits that they retain the record upto six months thereafter send the same to their Head Office. Ld. counsel for the complainant, however, submits that sufficient time was available with the bank to bring the relevant record.
I consider that delay has occurred only due to the conduct attributable to the HDFC Bank, Old Rajender Nagar. Consequent upon this, a cost of Rs.5,000/- is imposed on the HDFC Bank, Old Rajender Nagar to be deposited with DLSA within 10 days. The bank shall be at liberty to deduct the amount from official of the bank who are responsible for non production of record before this court.
One Rohit Jain, Personal Banker, HDFC Bank, Kohat Enclave, Pitampura is present. He submits that he has not received the details of the documents required in the present case. Accused submits that his bank is in Pitampura and not in Kohat Enclave. Notice be issued to the HDFC bank, CD Block, Pitampura, New Delhi alongwith the copy of the application of the complainant. Both the bank to bring the relevant documents certified in accordance with Bankers Books Evidence Act.
Matter to be listed on 16.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 06.10.2012 Rajan Lao Vs. R.L. Sethi CC No.2352/10 06.10.2012 Statement of Mr. Rajan Lao, Complainant (recalled for cross-examination on an application U/s 145(2) NI Act).
XXXXX by Mr. K.C. Jain, Ld. counsel for the accused.
On S.A. I am 53 years old. I am B.Com. pass. I am doing business of property finance for the last 35 years. Presently I am residing at 4/51, Old Rajender Nagar, New Delhi. I know the accused for the last 12-13 years and since then I am having friendly relationship with the accused. Besides me, my brothers Rajesh Sharma and Raman Kumar are also having friendship with the accused for the last 12-13 years. I am not doing the business of property dealer. I have narrated the entire facts to my counsel before filing of the present complaint. I have gone through and understood the contents of my affidavit Exh.CW1/A and the same was drafted on my instructions. Except the facts mentioned by me in the said affidavit there is no other transactions of the accused with me. I am an Income Tax Assessee for the last 30 years. I am maintaining my statement of accounts. I cannot tell that since when the Income Tax record is with me as my entire record of income tax is lying with my Chartered Accountant Sh. Inder Mohan Singh. I can produce my income tax record after taking the same from my CA.
I gave a loan of Rs.24 lacs on and around 22.10.2008 to the accused. This date is also mentioned in my complaint. It is wrong to suggest that I had given a loan of Rs.24 lacs to the accused on and around 22.10.2008.
Q. Can you give the details of the said loan of Rs.24 lacs given to the accused ? Ans. I gave a cheque of Rs.11 lacs to the accused and I also gave some building material to the accused and I also gave some cash to the accused.
I have shown the said loan amount of Rs.24 lacs in my Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2009-2010. I cannot tell for how much building material I gave to the accused. I also cannot tell the cost of the building material to the accused. I cannot tell how much cash I had given to the accused out of the loan amount of Rs.24 lacs. (Vol. I supplied the building material to the accused and I destroyed I all the bills of purchasing the building material). I gave building material to the accused. Again said the accused purchased building material.
Q. Have you purchased any building material to be given to the accused ? Ans. I had already purchased the building material which was in my stock.
I gave building material to the accused in the month of November 2008. Again said in the month of November-December 2008. I cannot tell the quantity of the building material given by me to the accused. It is wrong to suggest that I have not given any cash or building material to the accused. (Vol. The said amount and building material was given to the accused by me for the purchase and construction for third and fourth floor of property bearing No.33/22, Old Rajender Nagar, New Delhi). In the month of February 2009, I was having one Current Bank Account with Indian Overseas Bank, New Rajender Nagar Branch and one Savings Bank Account in the same bank and same branch. I do not remember whether I have withdrawn any money from the said bank accounts for giving money to the accused. It is correct that I give loan to relatives and friends besides the accused. I am charging interest on the such loan given by me to the relatives and friends. Again said I am not charging any interest from my relatives. I have not obtained any money lending licence from the NCT of Delhi. It is wrong to suggest that without taking the money lending licence I cannot give any loan to my friends and relatives. It is correct that I have shown the loan of Rs.24 lacs given to the accused in my Balance Sheet and Statement of Account on 31.03.2009. It is correct that my returns are not audited by the Chartered Accountant. Sometimes my yearly income is more than Rs.10 lacs and normally it is less than Rs.10 lacs.
Cross-examination deferred at lunch time as ld. counsel for the accused has to go to attend some other court.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 06.10.2012 Rajan Lao Vs. R.L. Sethi CC No.2354/10 06.10.2012 Statement of Mr. Rajan Lao, Complainant (recalled for cross-examination on an application U/s 145(2) NI Act).
XXXXX by Mr. K.C. Jain, Ld. counsel for the accused.
On S.A. I am 53 years old. I am B.Com. pass. I am doing business of property finance for the last 35 years. Presently I am residing at 4/51, Old Rajender Nagar, New Delhi. I know the accused for the last 12-13 years and since then I am having friendly relationship with the accused. Besides me, my brothers Rajesh Sharma and Raman Kumar are also having friendship with the accused for the last 12-13 years. I am not doing the business of property dealer. I have narrated the entire facts to my counsel before filing of the present complaint. I have gone through and understood the contents of my affidavit Exh.CW1/A and the same was drafted on my instructions. Except the facts mentioned by me in the said affidavit there is no other transactions of the accused with me. I am an Income Tax Assessee for the last 30 years. I am maintaining my statement of accounts. I cannot tell that since when the Income Tax record is with me as my entire record of income tax is lying with my Chartered Accountant Sh. Inder Mohan Singh. I can produce my income tax record after taking the same from my CA.
I gave a loan of Rs.24 lacs on and around 22.10.2008 to the accused. This date is also mentioned in my complaint. It is wrong to suggest that I had given a loan of Rs.24 lacs to the accused on and around 22.10.2008.
Q. Can you give the details of the said loan of Rs.24 lacs given to the accused ? Ans. I gave a cheque of Rs.11 lacs to the accused and I also gave some building material to the accused and I also gave some cash to the accused.
I have shown the said loan amount of Rs.24 lacs in my Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2009-2010. I cannot tell for how much building material I gave to the accused. I also cannot tell the cost of the building material to the accused. I cannot tell how much cash I had given to the accused out of the loan amount of Rs.24 lacs. (Vol. I supplied the building material to the accused and I destroyed I all the bills of purchasing the building material). I gave building material to the accused. Again said the accused purchased building material.
Q. Have you purchased any building material to be given to the accused ? Ans. I had already purchased the building material which was in my stock.
I gave building material to the accused in the month of November 2008. Again said in the month of November-December 2008. I cannot tell the quantity of the building material given by me to the accused. It is wrong to suggest that I have not given any cash or building material to the accused. (Vol. The said amount and building material was given to the accused by me for the purchase and construction for third and fourth floor of property bearing No.33/22, Old Rajender Nagar, New Delhi). In the month of February 2009, I was having one Current Bank Account with Indian Overseas Bank, New Rajender Nagar Branch and one Savings Bank Account in the same bank and same branch. I do not remember whether I have withdrawn any money from the said bank accounts for giving money to the accused. It is correct that I give loan to relatives and friends besides the accused. I am charging interest on the such loan given by me to the relatives and friends. Again said I am not charging any interest from my relatives. I have not obtained any money lending licence from the NCT of Delhi. It is wrong to suggest that without taking the money lending licence I cannot give any loan to my friends and relatives. It is correct that I have shown the loan of Rs.24 lacs given to the accused in my Balance Sheet and Statement of Account on 31.03.2009. It is correct that my returns are not audited by the Chartered Accountant. Sometimes my yearly income is more than Rs.10 lacs and normally it is less than Rs.10 lacs.
Cross-examination deferred at lunch time as ld. counsel for the accused has to go to attend some other court.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 06.10.2012 Rajan Lao Vs. R.L. Sethi CC No.2354/10 & 2352/10 06.10.2012 Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
These are tow connected matters.
Complainant cross-examined in part.
Cross-examination deferred at lunch time at request of ld. counsel for the complainant as he has to go to some other court.
List on 21.12.2012 at request of both the sides.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
06.10.2012
Gurdev Singh and Jaspal Singh Vs. Ms. Asha Rani
CC No.4381/10 & 4422/10
06.10.2012
Present: Both the parties with counsels.
These are two connected matters against the accused.
Complainant Gurdev Singh further Cross-examined in CC No.4381/10. Discharged.
CE closed in that case.
At request of the parties, list on 20.10.2012 in CC No.4422/10.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 06.10.2012 Ms. Shashi Kapoor Vs. Mohinder Bhola CC No.581/10 06.10.2012 File taken up on an application moved on behalf of the complainant U/s 421 Cr.P.C.
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Ld. counsel submits that appeal of the convict has been dismissed by the Ld. Appellate Court vide its order dated 05.06.2012 and as such convict is liable to pay the fine amount as imposed by this court on 19.09.2011.
Ld. Counsel further submits that the convict had deposited Rs.2,50,000/- in the Ld. Appellate Court which has already been released to the complainant. Ld. counsel for the complainant submits that the remaining Rs.2,50,000/- has not been paid by the complainant.
Since the fine if not paid can be recovered by Warrant of Attachment U/s 421 Cr.P.C., let a Warrant of Attachment in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- be issued against the convict for 30.10.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 06.10.2012 Tilak Raj Kapoor Vs. Madan Mohan Singh CC No.3115/10 06.10.2012 Present: Accused in person.
He submits that he has deposited the cost of Rs.20,000/- with DLSA. Copy of receipt taken on record.
Nothing survives in the present case.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
06.10.2012
Sandeep Maan Vs. Satish Chander
CC No.2334/10
06.10.2012
Present: None.
A report has been received that post office will not release the amount of KBPs to the Tanvi Sharma till receiving the order of this court.
I consider that Warrant of Attachment was issued for recovery of the amount by attaching the KBPs of the Surety Tanvi Sharma. The police authorities are required to attach those KBPs and to deposit the amount thereof to the extent of Rs.20,000/- with the State as forfeited bond amount.
Attachment Warrant be issued afresh for 30.10.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
06.10.2012
Raj Kumar Chhabra Vs. Chaman Lal
CC No.1784/10
06.10.2012
Present: Complainant with proxy counsel.
Accused/convict with his son.
Convict has provided his address.
Let Attachment Warrant be issued for 17.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
06.10.2012
Shalabh Jindal Vs. Rajesh Gupta
CC No.2778/10
06.10.2012
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
NBW unexecuted.
In view of the earlier report on BW and latest report on NBW, let process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. be issued against the accused for 12.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
06.10.2012
Ajay Tripathi Vs. Jay Singh
CC No.1919/10
06.10.2012
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Counsel fort the accused.
Ld. counsel for the accused has filed Vakalatnama.
Respective exemption applications have been filed.
Ld. counsel for the accused has further given assurance that he will ensure the presence of the accused.
By way of last opportunity, adjourned to 20.10.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
06.10.2012
Bishamber Singh Vs. Surinder Singh Sethi
CC No.4954/10
06.10.2012
Present: None.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
06.10.2012
At 02.10 p.m.
Present: Proxy counsel for the complainant.
He seeks one months time to file fresh address of the accused.
List on 10.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
06.10.2012
Mukesh Sharma Vs. Attar Singh
CC No.25/10
06.10.2012
Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
At request, matter be sent to the Mediation Cell for 18.10.2012 at 11.00 a.m. Regular date is 12.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
06.10.2012
Arun Sharma Vs. Deva Ram Jaat
CC No.3045/10
06.10.2012
Present: Complainant with counsel.
It appears that summons issued for 18.04.2012 has been received back.
A bare perusal of the report, however, goes to show that accused has deliberately avoided the service of summons.
Consequently a Bailable Warrant in the sum of Rs.25,000/- be issued for 08.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 06.10.2012 M/s Life Medicare & Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Sunny Enterprises & Anr.
CC No.3087/10 06.10.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel. They seek some more time to advance arguments. List on 30.10.2012. (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 06.10.2012 M/s Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Ltd. Vs. Surender Malik CC No.1377/11 06.10.2012
File taken up on an application U/s 145(2) NI Act moved by the accused.
Present: Accused with counsel.
List on date fixed i.e. 30.10.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
06.10.2012
Om Prakash Verma Vs. Harbans Singh
CC No.3877/10
06.10.2012
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Processes not received back. Be awaited.
Warrant of Attachment be issued afresh against the Surety for 08.11.2012.
At request of ld. counsel, date is changed to 05.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 06.10.2012 M/s Hair Appliances India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Narendra Amrut Bindra CC No.2009/10 06.10.2012 Present: Proxy counsel for the complainant.
Process U/s 83 Cr.P.C. unexecuted.
A report has been received from concerned PS that they have already registered an FIR against the accused U/s 174A IPC.
Complainant is given liberty to file fresh address of the accused. Whenever the accused is apprehended, file may be taken up.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 06.10.2012