Delhi District Court
M/S Aarti Prakashan (Regd.) vs . Suresh Kumar on 12 February, 2013
M/s Aarti Prakashan (Regd.) Vs. Suresh Kumar
CC No.6856/12
12.02.2013
Present: None.
Ahlmad to report compliance of previous order.
Be complied with afresh for 29.05.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
12.02.2013
Aimil Pharmaceuticals (I) Ltd. Vs. Arun Prasad Misra
CC No.3768/10
12.02.2013
Present: AR of the Complainant.
Accused absent.
Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. received back.
Let Process Server be called for 16.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
12.02.2013
Anil Kumar Sharma Vs. Sanjay Nayak
CC No.2761/10
12.02.2013
Present: None for the Complainant.
Accused in person.
Notice issued to the Complainant unserved.
Fresh Notice be issued to the Complainant for 15.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
12.02.2013
Arun Talwar Vs. M/s PSG Developers & Engineers Ltd. & Ors.
CC No.1984/10
12.02.2013
Present: None.
Last opportunity for compliance of earlier orders for 01.06.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
12.02.2013
Balaji Chemicals Corporation Vs. M/s Pragati Hightech Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
CC No.6472/12
12.02.2013
Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
Respondent absent.
It appears that Notice of condonation application was directed to be issued but the office issued a summons to the Respondent. The same has been received back unserved by post.
Let fresh Notice be issued. Office shall also be cautious while preparing the process. Office to also clarify the CC number of the case.
List on 16.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 12.02.2013 Balaji Chemicals Corporation Vs. M/s Pragati Hightech Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
CC No.6415/11 & 6663/12 12.02.2013 Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
Accused absent.
These are two connected matters.
Summons sent by post received back unserved with a report yeh firm band padi hai.
Let a BW in the sum of Rs.10,000/- be issued against the accused Vishal Gupta for 30.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
12.02.2013
Bimal Khurana Vs. Amit Dua
CC No.5219/10
12.02.2013
Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
Accused absent.
NBW for last date is on record which is unexecuted showing a deliberate attempt on the part of the accused.
In such circumstances, let a Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. be issued against the accused.
A Notice to Surety of the accused be also issued for 27.05.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 12.02.2013 Charanjit Singh Bajaj Vs. Mrs. Komal Gandhi & Anr.
CC No.4365/10
12.02.2013
Present: Complainant in person.
Accused absent.
It appears that till date Complainant has not filed any fresh address of the accused.
Last opportunity for the Complainant to file any such address whereupon he can take necessary steps for compliance of earlier orders for 22.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 12.02.2013 M/s Doreset Kaba Security System Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Sai Enterprises & Anr.
CC No.7040/12
12.02.2013
Present: None.
One opportunity to the Complainant subject to a cost of Rs.1,000/- to be deposited with Mediation Center, Tis Hazari, Delhi.
List on 09.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 12.02.2013 Ganesh Bansal Vs. M/s Atma Tube Products Ltd. & Ors.
CC No.1082/A/11 & 4523/10 12.02.2013 Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
These are two connected matters.
Orders be awaited from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
List on 29.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 12.02.2013 M/s Gupta Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Nitto Polymers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
CC No.1282/10
12.02.2013
Present: None.
It appears that a returned Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. for 10.09.2012 is on record. However, the same is showing the execution date as 27.08.2012. Clearly mandatory gap of 30 days has not been provided by the police official.
Let, in terms of order dated 18.01.2008, a fresh Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. be issued against the accused.
It appears that there is no report in respect of Notice to the Complainant. Ahlmad shall check and report.
In the meantime, fresh Notice be issued to the Complainant.
It appears that office has indicated that the Process could not be issued for 09.07.2012 as there was no order dated 06.06.2011. It appears that on several occasions several directions have been passed for issuance of processes but the office has not complied with the same. It appears that in fact it was the order dated 10.06.2011 (due to some typographical error, order dated 23.05.2012 is showing the date as 06.06.2011 which shall be deemed to be corrected), which was to be complied with in which a direction was issued to comply with the orders dated 18.01.2008 and 04.12.2010. The office should have gone through the order dated 10.06.2011. Even further an explanation was also called from the Ahlmad as to how he issued a Notice to the accused when Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. was directed to be issued but this explanation was never furnished by the Ahlmad. Unfortunately even the Ahlmad has not furnished the status of notices directed to be issued to the Complainant whereas several times notice was directed to be issued to the Complainant.
A clear explanation shall be furnished by the Ahlmad within three days about all the processes issued in the present case from this court and about his action in issuing the notice to the accused despite the fact that Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. was to be issued against the accused.
For regular proceedings, Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. be issued against the accused and a Notice to the Complainant be also issued for 03.06.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
12.02.2013
Kishan Lal Vs. Mukesh Kumar
CC No.5565/11
12.02.2013
Present: None.
Notice to Complainant unserved. It appears that for 24.09.2012, Process U/s 83 Cr.P.C. against the accused was unexecuted.
A Notice to Surety be issued and a Notice to counsel for the accused be also issued for 30.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 12.02.2013 Lata Malhotra Vs. Satish CC No.3664/10 & 4366/10 12.02.2013 Present: None for the Complainant.
Accused in person.
These are two connected matters.
Accused submits that he has paid entire amount to the Complainant.
Let Notice be issued to the Complainant for 12.03.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 12.02.2013 M/s Jawala Parshad Fateh Chand Vs. M/s Pee Kay Enterprises & Anr.
CC No.7094/12
12.02.2013
Present: AR of the Complainant.
At his request, last opportunity is given.
List on 10.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 12.02.2013 M/s Swift Handicrafts Vs. M/s A.S.T. Capital Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
CC No.6516/A/12 12.02.2013 Present: Proxy counsel for the Complainant.
Accused absent.
Returned summons for the last date is on record which was unserved with a reason no information found. It, however, appears that Complainant had served the legal demand notice on the accused persons on the same address and acknowledgment cards are also on record in that respect. It seems that accused persons are deliberately avoiding the summons. As such a Bailable Warrant in the sum of Rs.30,000/- be issued against accused No.2 and 3.
List on 20.05.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 12.02.2013 Sunil Kumar Barolia Vs. Hemant Kumar Sakkarwal CC No.4747/10 12.02.2013 Statement of Mr. Pujya Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for the Complainant. Without oath.
I, the above named counsel for the Complainant do hereby state on behalf of the Complainant 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 to the Complainant. Complainant has no further grievance against the accused as nothing remains due towards the accused. 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
12.02.2013
Satvinder Singh Bedi Vs. R.K. Gupta
CC No.4158/10
12.02.2013
Statement of Mr. R.N. Obroi, Ld. Counsel for the Complainant. Without oath.
I, the above named counsel for the Complainant do hereby state on behalf of the Complainant that the matter has been amicably settled with the accused in Mediation Cell in full and final settlement in the present complaint case. Accused has given the entire settled amount to the Complainant as per the Mediation agreement. Complainant has no further grievance against the accused as nothing remains due towards the accused. 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
12.02.2013
Satvinder Singh Bedi Vs. R.K. Gupta
CC No.4158/10
12.02.2013
Present: Ld. Counsel for the Complainant.
Accused with counsel.
Matter settled as per Separate statement of ld. counsel for the Complainant. 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 12.02.2013 Sunil Kumar Barolia Vs. Hemant Kumar Sakkarwal CC No.4747/10 12.02.2013 Present: Ld. Counsel for the Complainant.
Accused in person.
Matter settled as per Separate statement of ld. counsel for the Complainant. 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 12.02.2013 M/s N.K. Handloom Vs. M/s Gavri Textile CC No.351/10 12.02.2013 Present: AR of the Complainant.
Accused absent.
SHO, and HC Ram Niwas from PS : Anand Parbat are present. They seek sometime to file explanations. They further submit that HC Madan Lal is absent without intimation.
Let the present status of HC Madan Lal be also filed by the police station.
At request of concerned SHO, be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
12.02.2013
At 12.33 p.m.
Present: AR of the Complainant.
Accused absent.
SHO, and HC Ram Niwas from PS : Anand Parbat are present.
SHO has filed his written explanation and has requested for some more time to file appropriate and comprehensive report.
I have gone through his explanation and I found it completely unsatisfactory. For instance, he has indicated that FIR U/s 174A IPC could not be registered for want of Memo of Parties. I, however, note that no such report was made by the concerned police station and that the notice and copy of order dated 11.10.2012 which was issued by the office for 21.01.2013 were returned by the concerned police station without any report whatsoever. Therefore, it cannot be believed that they wanted to seek any clarification in the matter. I consider that this is not appropriate on the part of the police officials to return the notices and orders of the court without compliance of the same. However, I see no regrets or apologies in the explanation filed by the concerned SHO.
However, as prayed time is given to file appropriate and comprehensive report in respect of all the directions issued to the police officials in the present case including the fact whether order dated 10.09.2012 was sent to the DCP (Hqr.) or not, the status of HC Madan Lal, explanation from the V-B Incharge of the Police station at the relevant time, initiation of necessary steps U/s 174A IPC against the accused as per order dated 11.10.2012, Guidelines about publication of process in a private complaint case. SHO shall also try to ensure the presence of HC Madan Lal and previous Incharge V-B on the next date.
It is expected from all the police officials that they should follow the orders of the court with all due diligence and should not allow themselves to avoid any order of the court. Pertinently such happenings are giving wrong impression about the functioning of concerned police station which is not at all appropriate.
With such a hope, one opportunity is given to the police officials to be cautious in future.
As prayed by the concerned SHO, let the order dated 11.10.2012 in respect of offence U/s 174 A IPC be complied with by the concerned Police Station. Let a true copy of order dated 11.10.2012 alongwith a copy of statement of Process Server HC Charan Singh be sent to the concerned police station so that they can take necessary steps against the accused in terms of that order.
The SHO shall be at liberty to obtain certified copies of order dated 11.10.2012, Statement of Process Server HC Charan Singh dated 11.10.2012. A copy of complaint may also be provided by the Complainant to the concerned SHO.
AR of the Complainant submits that the house belongs to the accused and the family of the accused is still residing there and that in the basement of the house accused is doing his business. As prayed, let NBW be also issued against the accused for securing his presence for which concerned Police Station shall take all necessary steps.
The SHO is seeking one week time to file his report. The same is granted.
However, for regular proceedings, list on 21.03.2013.
AR of the Complainant shall also assist the police officials in execution of NBW.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 12.02.2013 Pradeep Singhal Vs. M/s Shyam Trading Co.
CC No.4277/10
12.02.2013
Present: None.
The NBW received back unexecuted due to shortage of staff. The reason given is not satisfactory. Let the SHO be called for his explanation.
It appears that office has not issued Notice to the Complainant. Let the same be issued for 20.03.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 12.02.2013 Ramesh Kumar Narang Vs. Laxmi Chand Lilani CC No.647/10 12.02.2013 Present: Complainant with proxy counsel.
Accused absent.
Process Server Ct. Ram Chander is present.
It appears that the Process has been executed at A-403. It, however, appears that one NBW was issued against the accused for 25.09.2012 at the address B-401 which was though unexecuted. Wife of the accused was found at the said address.
Let the Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. be issued at the address as mentioned in the NBW for 25.09.2012.
Ct. Ram Chander is discharged for today.
List on 14.05.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
12.02.2013
Sanjeev Malhotra Vs. Jaswinder Singh
CC No.3757/10
12.02.2013
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused absent.
HC Raj Kumar is present and has filed a written letter stating that he was on night duty and was not feeling well, therefore, could not appear in the court. A report has also been received from the concerned SHO that HC Raj Kumar was on night duty. HC Raj Kumar has also filed a copy of medical prescription. Ct. Rakesh is, however, not present. HC Raj Kumar is bound down for the next date. Ct. Rakesh be also called.
List on 19.03.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
12.02.2013
Vinod Kumar Vs. M/s Pipe Traders & Ors.
CC No.3956/10, 3957/10 & 3969/10
12.02.2013
Present: Proxy counsel for the Complainant.
These are three connected matters.
Ld. Proxy counsel submits that they are not in contact with complainant and that they have even sent a legal notice to the Complainant.
Let a Notice be issued to the Complainant for 17.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 12.02.2013 Vishnu Lochan Mishra Vs. M/s PSG Developers & Engineers Ltd. & Ors.
CC No.321/1012.02.2013 Present: Proxy counsel for the Complainant.
Accused absent.
NBW against accused Y.S. Rana unexecuted.
Let fresh NBW be issued against the accused Y.S. Rana on all the available addresses.
Summons be also issued against all other accused persons in terms of order dated 19.04.2012.
List on 01.06.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 12.02.2013 M/s Esys Information Technologies Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Kesarwani CC No.3702/10 12.02.2013 Present: Mr. Kamendra Kumar Rajput from Complainant.
Accused with counsel.
Mr. Rajput submits that he is authorized representative of the Complainant. He, however, submits that he will file an application for substitution of Ar alongwith Board Resolution. He further submits that thereafter they will file fresh evidence by his affidavit.
Accused has filed an application U/s 145(2) NI Act and supplied a copy to Mr. Rajput.
Ld. counsel for the accused submits that complainant should provide a copy of Pre- summoning affidavit. However, Mr. Rajput submits that the earlier AR has left the company and fresh affidavit has to be filed by the proposed AR.
Let all the needful be done by the Complainant's side with advanced copy of affidavit, if any, to the accused. Only after completion of all such steps by the Complainant, the application of the accused U/s 145(2) NI Act will be taken up for reply, arguments and disposal.
List on 15.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 12.02.2013 M/s GNG Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bawa Alloys Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
CC No.6722/1212.02.2013 Present: AR of the Complainant with proxy counsel.
Proxy counsel for the accused.
An exemption application has been filed on behalf of the accused on the ground that he is in Mumbai.
It appears that matter is listed for arguments on application.
Both the proxy counsels are seeking a passover for want of their ld. main counsels. Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
12.02.2013
At 12.30 p.m.
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Proxy counsel for the accused.
Both the sides are seeking an adjournment for exploring the possibility of settlement.
By way of last opportunity, list on 25.03.2013 at request of both the sides.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
12.02.2013
Narender Marwah Vs. Hemant Sharma
CC No.6186/11
12.02.2013
Present: Complainant in person.
Counsel for the accused.
Ld. Counsel for the accused has filed an exemption application on the ground that Department of accused has restricted any kind of leave by issuing an office order. A copy of which is attached with the exemption application. Ld. counsel submits that after 25.02.2013, accused will be able to appear.
Accused shall be exempted for today. List for 28.02.2013.
At request of ld. counsel for the accused, date is changed to 02.03.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
12.02.2013
Anil Kanodia Vs. Rajveer Singh
CC No.6512/A/12
12.02.2013
Present: None for the Complainant.
Accused with counsel.
This is a Parcha Yaddast as the file is before the Ld. Revisional Court.
List on 15.03.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 12.02.2013 M/s Super Crafts Vs. M/s Fair Growth Exports CC No.6777/12 12.02.2013 Present: Ld. counsels for both the sides.
Both the ld. counsels submit that there is possibility of settlement, however, more time is required.
Last opportunity for the parties.
An exemption application has also been filed on behalf of the accused on the ground that he has gone to Jaipur to attend last riots of his maternal uncle. Subject to furnishing of relevant proof, accused is exempted for today.
List on 18.03.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
12.02.2013
R.P. Garg Vs. Durga Parshad Sharma
CC No.5456/11
12.02.2013
Present: None.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
12.02.2013
At 02.46 p.m.
Present: None for the Complainant.
Counsel for the accused.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
12.02.2013
At 03.03 p.m.
Present: None for the Complainant.
Accused with counsel.
A Notice be issued to the Complainant for 12.03.2013 as the ld. counsel for the accused has made a submission that the other case is listed on 12.03.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
12.02.2013
Jaspal Singh Alagh Vs. Ashish Juneja
CC No.6373/11
12.02.2013
Present: Parties with their counsels.
Ld. counsel for the complainant has filed reply to the application of accused moved U/s 311 Cr.P.C.
Ld. counsel for the accused is praying for one opportunity to cross-examine the complainant on the ground that steps were not taken by the previous counsel for the accused and that cross-examination of complainant is necessary for just decision of the case.
Ld. counsel for the complainant is, however, opposing the prayer with a submission that a mere blame on previous counsel cannot justify anything. More so when the submission of ld. counsel for the accused itself is wrong as the earlier counsel for the accused had taken steps and applied for cross- examination of the Complainant which was, however, rejected and thereafter defence witnesses were also summoned.
Having heard the ld. counsels, I am of the opinion that Section-311 Cr.P.C. should not be invoked where particular provisions for the purpose are available in Statute Book for the purpose of cross- examination, Section-145(2) NI Act has been enacted and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Aggarwal Vs. State & Anr. 171 (2010) DLT-51 has issued a mandate that such application should be filed by the accused at the time of recording of Plea which would be decided by the court. Admittedly in the present case no such application was filed at the time of recording of Plea. However, an application for cross-examination was filed when the matter was at Stage-III of Rajesh Aggarwal (Supra) and prayer of cross-examination was declined. If now this court allows the present application U/s 311 Cr.P.C., it would virtually amount to a review of its own order declining the prayer of cross-examination which was passed on some earlier occasion. The application as such is dismissed. An opportunity is given to the accused to examine his defence witnesses upon taking of necessary steps for 17.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 12.02.2013 Mohd. Sajid Vs. M/s M.V.S. Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
CC No.441/1012.02.2013 Statement of HC Rajeev Kumar, No.581N, PS : Lahori Gate, Delhi-110006. On S.A. I am the Process Server in this case. On 16.07.2012, I had gone to execute the Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. for 17.08.2012 upon the accused Vihan M. Khera at the given address i.e. E-204, Flatted Factory Complex, Okhla, New Delhi-110020. At the given address I met with Kanhaiya Lal who informed me that accused was his factory owner but was not available at that time. I recorded his statement which is Mark-X. I affixed a copy of the Process on main gate of the address. I also made announcement in the public about the process. I affixed the copy of the Process on the Notice Board of the Court. My report is Mark-X1 having my signature at Point-A. This is my true and correct statement.
RO & AC
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
12.02.2013
M/s Max Rollers Vs. Rajesh Kumar
CC No.6178/10
12.02.2013
Present: Both the parties with their Counsels.
Ld. counsel for the accused has filed his Vakalatnama.
Ld. counsel for the accused has also filed an application U/s 315 Cr.P.C. for his own examination as a defence witness.
Since matter is at the stage of defence evidence, the application is allowed. However, since no other witness has been proposed to be examined in defence, the defence evidence is restricted to the examination of accused himself as a witness for which only one opportunity shall be available with the accused.
Ld. counsel for the accused submits that he has only been engaged today, therefore, he is unable to examine the accused today itself. Ld. counsel is, therefore, seeking one opportunity. Last opportunity is given.
List on 13.03.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 12.02.2013 Mehar Chand Rana Vs. Golden Forest India Ltd. & Ors.
CC No.4490/1012.02.2013 Present: Proxy counsel for the Complainant.
Accused No.3 with counsel.
Ms. Pamila Sayal produced in JC from Ambala Jail.
One counsel is also present on her behalf who is seeking a passover to file his Vakalatnama and also to furnish bonds on behalf of Pamila Sayal as the offence is bailable one.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 12.02.2013 At 02.50 p.m. Present: Proxy counsel for the Complainant.
Accused No.3 with counsel.
Accused Pamila Sayal in JC.
Ld. Proxy counsel submits that Pamila Sayal is an accused being authorized signatory of the cheque in question which was issued by the company.
Counsel for accused Pamila Sayal who has filed his Vakalatnama.
Since this is the first appearance of the accused Pamila Sayal. She is admitted on bail subject to her furnishing of bail bond and surety bond to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. She furnished the bonds. Accepted.
Ld. counsel for the accused Pamila Sayal submits that Hon'ble Supreme Court has framed a scheme and has appointed a committee for taking over the assets of the company, selling those assets and to pay the investors.
Ld. proxy counsel is seeking an adjournment for want of AR of the Complainant and ld. main counsel for the complainant. He, however, submits that he will supply copy of complaint to the ld. counsel for the accused Pamila Sayal.
Last opportunity.
List on 02.03.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
12.02.2013
Brij Mohan Sanon Vs. Manoj Tyagi
CC No.7239/13
12.02.2013
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 has already 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 01.06.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 12.02.2013 Kumar Siddhartha Vs. Smt. Sheela Pathak CC No.7263/13 12.02.2013 Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
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 NI Act has been made out against the accused. Let the accused be summoned through all available modes for 07.05.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 12.02.2013 Orient Links Pvt. Ltd. Vs. S.P. Printers CC No.6888/12 12.02.2013 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 has already 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 03.06.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 12.02.2013 Rahisuddin @ Chand Vs. Asad Parvez @ Parvez Mamu CC No.7191/13 12.02.2013 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 NI Act has been made out against the accused. Let the accused be summoned through all available modes for 28.05.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 12.02.2013 Narang Shoes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pankaj Kumar CC No.6782/12 12.02.2013 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 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 29.05.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 12.02.2013 Narang Shoes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pankaj Kumar CC No.6783/12 12.02.2013 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 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 29.05.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 12.02.2013 Thomas Cook (I) Ltd. Vs. M/s 4-Fresh Retail Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
CC No.4040/10 & 4887/1012.02.2013 Present: AR of the Complainant with proxy counsel.
Accused in person.
These are two connected matters.
Ld. proxy counsel submits that they will supply relevant copies to the accused.
As prayed, by way of last opportunity, adjourned to 11.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 12.02.2013 M/s Ravilo Trade India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Diamond Tradex Company & Anr.
CC No.7262/1312.02.2013 Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
At request, adjourned to 08.03.2013 for consideration.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 12.02.2013 M/s Krishna Craftex Vs. World Win Wear & Anr.
CC No.7261/1312.02.2013 Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
At request, adjourned to 07.03.2013 for consideration.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
12.02.2013
Anil Malik Vs. Griesh Kumar Khanduja
CC No.7259/13
12.02.2013
Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
At request, adjourned to 22.02.2013 for consideration.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
12.02.2013
Anil Malik Vs. Griesh Kumar Khanduja
CC No.7269/13
12.02.2013
Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
At request, adjourned to 22.02.2013 for consideration.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
12.02.2013
Anil Malik Vs. Griesh Kumar Khanduja
CC No.7258/13
12.02.2013
Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
At request, adjourned to 22.02.2013 for consideration.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
12.02.2013
Anand Kumar Vs. Smt. Sunita Bhatia
CC No.5042/10
12.02.2013
File taken up on an application moved by the Surety seeking time to produce the accused.
Present: Surety with counsel Sh. Mohit Sood.
Ld. Counsel submits that one month is required to produce the accused.
Let the time be given to the Surety to produce the accused.
Ld. counsel shall also advance arguments on the point of liability of the Surety of penalty as the ld. counsel is seeking waiver of penalty in view of the proposed production of accused by the Surety.
List on 12.03.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
12.02.2013
Smt. Rajni Gilani Vs. Baldev @ Ballu
CC No.5991/11
12.02.2013
File taken up on application for accused for summoning of witness.
Present: Proxy counsel for the accused.
Let both the witnesses as per application be summoned upon taking all necessary steps.
List on date fixed i.e. 01.03.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 12.02.2013 Mohd. Sajid Vs. M/s M.V.S. Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
CC No.441/1012.02.2013 Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
Accused absent.
Process Server Rajeev Kumar is present and has filed his explanation stating that due to certain illness, he could not appear in the court. He is warned to be careful in future.
Statement of Process Server HC Rajeev Kumar is recorded in respect of execution of Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. against the accused for appearance on 17.08.2012. It is declared that proclamation was published against the accused on 16.07.2012 in the manner required U/s 82(2)
(i) Cr.P.C. By non appearance on the given date, the accused has committed an offence U/s 174 A IPC first part.
Let a copy of this order alongwith a copy of statement of Process Server Rajeev Kumar be sent to the concerned police station so that they can take appropriate steps against the accused for an offence U/s 174 A IPC first part. The SHO shall also be entitled to obtain a certified copy of todays order and the statement of HC Rajeev Kumar and also of the complaint, if so required.
Let a Process U/s 83 Cr.P.C. be also issued against the accused namely, Vihan M. Khera for 29.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 12.02.2013 M/s Vijaypower Generators Ltd. Vs. M/s Tarun Engineering Syndicate CC No.2739/10, 2740/10, 4155/10, 4216/10, 4433/10 & 4448/10 12.02.2013 Present: AR of the Complainant.
Accused with counsel.
These are six connected matters.
It seems that there are certain problems in respect of marking of documents. Both the sides submit that CW3 may be recalled for his examination. Both the sides submit that both the sides have ample power U/s 311 Cr.P.C. to recall any witness at any stage.
In such circumstances and in view of the discretion available U/s 311 Cr.P.C., let CW3 be called on the next date.
List on 18.02.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 12.02.2013