Delhi District Court
Ajay Tripathi vs . Jay Singh on 7 February, 2013
Ajay Tripathi Vs. Jay Singh CC No.1919/10 07.02.2013
Present: None.
NBW issued against the convict unexecuted due to shortage of time.
Let fresh NBW be issued against the convict for 28.02.2013.
SHO be also called for his explanation in respect of the non execution of NBW as this is not a sufficient ground to say that time was sought.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.02.2013 Anil Mendiratta Vs. M/s Falcon India Co. Ltd.
CC No.5123/10 07.02.2013 Present: None.
Ahlmad to report compliance of the last order.
Previous order be complied with afresh for 05.03.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
07.02.2013
Ashok Kumar Karnani Vs. Ekta Seth
CC No.7250/13
07.02.2013
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 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 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
07.02.2013
Atul Jain Vs. Dinesh Chand Gupta
CC No.4968/10
07.02.2013
Present: Complainant in person.
Accused with counsel.
Ahlmad to report compliance of the last order.
Previous order be complied with afresh for 16.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
07.02.2013
B.S. Jodhka Vs. Sharad Gupta
CC No.1635/10
07.02.2013
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 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 has been made out against the accused. Let the accused be summoned through all available modes for 31.05.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.02.2013 M/s Bharat Insecticides Ltd. Vs. Niranjan Kumar Sinha CC No.2403/10 07.02.2013 Present: AR of the Complainant in person.
Ahlmad to report compliance of the last order.
Previous order be complied with afresh for 08.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
07.02.2013
Ganesh Ram Vs. Rakesh Kumar Sharma
CC No.6234/11
07.02.2013
Present: Complainant in person.
Accused absent.
Complainant submits that the cheque of Rs.1,25,000/- provided by the accused for settlement has been dishonoured. He has filed the cheque alongwith the Dishonour Memo. Complainant has also filed an application for initiating contempt action against the accused. Be awaited for the accused.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
07.02.2013
At 02.15 p.m.
Present: Complainant in person.
Counsel for the accused.
Ld. counsel submits that accused is not present today as he is out of Delhi.
I consider that accused has deliberately avoided his appearance today. In such circumstances, NBW be issued against the accused to secure his presence. Complainant to also provide copy of his application to the ld. counsel for the accused.
List on 18.02.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.02.2013 Gaurav Chaudhary Vs. Sardar Surender Singh CC No.1225/10 07.02.2013 Present: None.
There is no compliance of the earlier order.
Last opportunity for the complainant to comply with the earlier order for 29.05.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
07.02.2013
Harminder Singh Vs. Om Prakash
CC No.5021/10
07.02.2013
Present: Complainant in person.
Accused absent.
Ahlmad to report about compliance of last order.
Be complied with for 30.05.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.02.2013 Impartial Chits Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Kumar Singh CC No.5239/10 07.02.2013 Present: None.
Ahlmad to report about compliance of last order.
Be complied with for 18.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
07.02.2013
Jasbir Singh Vs. Dharam Pal Panchal
CC No.3860/10
07.02.2013
Present: None.
Ahlmad to report about compliance of last order.
Be complied with for 20.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.02.2013 Gyan Security Press Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (accused) CC No.6875/12 & 6876/12 07.02.2013 Present: Complainant/AR of the Complainant with counsel.
These are two matters against the accused.
Ld. counsel has filed an affidavit of Sanjay Chheda stating that the Complainant has received a call from the accused intimating that they had received the summons.
In such circumstances, let a Bailable Warrant in the sum of Rs.20,000/- be issued against the accused Ambar Gautam. Further summons be issued to all the other accused through all modes for 15.05.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.02.2013 L.T. Vishwakarma Engg. Works Vs. Ashok Kumar CC No.6688/12 07.02.2013 Present: Parties in person.
Complainant submits that they have Rs.25,000/- from the accused and there is possibility of settlement.
At request, list on 11.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.02.2013 M/s Globe Innovation & Solutions Vs. Puneet Sharma CC No.7248/13 07.02.2013 Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
Present: None.
Adjourned to 16.03.2013 for consideration.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.02.2013 M/s Pipeline Products India Vs. M/s Tricolite Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
CC No.6452/11 07.02.2013 Present: None for the Complainant. Accused with counsel. At request, be awaited. (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.02.2013 After lunch time. Present: Counsel for the Complainant. Accused with counsel.
Accused is admitted on bail subject to furnishing of bail bond and surety bond to the tune of Rs.90,000/-. Furnished. Accepted subject to furnishing of remaining solvency.
Accusation explained over to the accused. His Plea and Examination recorded separately.
In terms of Step-III of Guidelines laid down in Rajesh Aggarwal Vs. State & Anr. 171(2010) DLT-51, list for defence evidence on 12.03.2013 at request of ld. counsel for the accused.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.02.2013 M/s Rishi Bansal (H.U.F.) Vs. Rastravyapi Ramdhari Singh Dinkar Samriti Nyas &Ors.
CC No.7251/1307.02.2013 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 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 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 01.06.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
07.02.2013
M/s S.K. Traders Vs. Praveen Kumar
CC No.7223/13
07.02.2013
Present: None.
Adjourned to 09.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
07.02.2013
Madan Lal Gupta Vs. Mukesh Kumar
CC No.6553/12
07.02.2013
Present: None.
Last opportunity for the Complainant to comply with the earlier order for 29.05.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
07.02.2013
Rakesh Vs. Mahender Singh
CC No.32/10
07.02.2013
Statement of Mr. Rakesh, 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 me entire settled amount of the cheque in question in the present case. I have no further grievance against the accused as nothing remains due towards the accused in the present complaint case. I have brought with me PAN Identity Card bearing No.AEZPV8594D issued by Income Tax Department, Govt. of India (OSR) which is Mark-X. 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
07.02.2013
Rakesh Vs. Mahender Singh
CC No.32/10
07.02.2013
Present: Parties in person.
Accused has given Rs.7,000/- to the Complainant.
Parties submit that payment has been completed. Separate statement of Complainant recorded in this respect.
Let the file be sent to Lok Adalat to be held on 09.02.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.02.2013 Rakesh Chand Jain Vs. G.S. Marketing Co.
CC No.6901/12
07.02.2013
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Ahlmad to report about compliance of last order.
Be complied with for 08.05.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
07.02.2013
Rapid Diagnostic Vs. Premanath
CC No.5031/10
07.02.2013
Present: AR of the Complainant.
Accused absent.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
07.02.2013
At 01.16 p.m.
Present: AR of the Complainant with counsel.
Counsel for the accused.
Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that accused has deposited the cost with the Mediation Center, Tis Hazari, Delhi. Copy of receipt taken on record.
An exemption application has been filed on behalf of the accused supported with medical papers. Exempted for today. Ld. counsel for the accused has handed over a DD bearing No. 197131 of Rs.20,000/- to the AR of the Complainant and prayed for time to make the balance payment to the Complainant which is acceptable to the Complainant.
At request of both the sides, list on 30.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.02.2013 Rashtriya Mahila Kosh Vs. Viswa Shanti Balananda Kendram & Ors.
CC No.4278/1007.02.2013 Present: Proxy counsel for the Complainant.
Earlier summons issued for 19.01.2012 be awaited.
Fresh summons be also issued for 31.05.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.02.2013 M/s Rising Star Tours & Travels Vs. M/s Tusir Textiles CC No.846/10 07.02.2013 Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
Accused absent.
Earlier BW issued for 21.11.2012 is still awaited.
Fresh BW be issued for 20.05.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.02.2013 Sachin Grover Vs. M/s Veekay Sales Corporation CC No.3967/1 & 4392/1 07.02.2013 Statement of Mr. Sachin Grover, 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 me entire settled amount of the cheque in question in the present case. 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 07.02.2013 Sachin Grover Vs. M/s Veekay Sales Corporation CC No.3967/1 & 4392/1 07.02.2013 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused Vineet Sharma in person.
These are two connected matters. The matters settled between the parties. Separate statement of Complainant recorded in this respect. The matters stand compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
Let the files be put up before the Lok Adalat to be held on 09.02.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.02.2013 Shankar Lal Aggarwal Vs. Rama Krishna Nayak CC No.7187/13 07.02.2013 Statement of Mr. Shankar Lal Aggarwal, 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 me entire settled amount of the cheque in question in the present case. 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 07.02.2013 Shankar Lal Aggarwal Vs. Rama Krishna Nayak CC No.7187/13 07.02.2013 Present: Complainant with counsel.
The matter settled. Separate statement of Complainant recorded in this respect. The matter stands compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
Let the file be put up before the Lok Adalat to be held on 09.02.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.02.2013 Shankar Lal Aggarwal Vs. Sandhya Shree Nayak CC No.7189/13 07.02.2013 Present: Complainant with counsel.
They are seeking 20 days time.
List on 01.03.2013 at request of ld. counsel.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.02.2013 Shankar Lal Aggarwal Vs. Jyoti Prakash Nayak CC No.7188/13 07.02.2013 Present: Complainant with counsel.
They are seeking 20 days time.
List on 01.03.2013 at request of ld. counsel.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
07.02.2013
Suraj Bhan Jain Vs. Dinesh Chand Gupta
CC No.4969/10
07.02.2013
Present: Complainant in person.
Accused in person.
Ahlmad to report compliance of the last order.
Previous order be complied with afresh for 16.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
07.02.2013
Surjit Singh Vs. Vivek Bajaj
CC No.7249/13
07.02.2013
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 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 07.02.2013 Tara Dutt Masiwal Vs. Girish Chand Joshi CC No.2894/10 07.02.2013 Statement of Constable, Ravinder Kumar, No.434C, PS : I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110001. On S.A. I am the Process Server in this case. On 10.11.2012 I had gone to execute the Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. for 15.12.2012 upon the Surety Seema who is the wife of the accused at the given address i.e. H.No.86/9, Krishan Garh, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110071 where none was found as the same was found locked. After enquiry in the neighbourhood, I came to know that she used to reside at the same address long time before and now she has left the said premises to nowhere place. Then I affixed a copy of the said Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. at the gate of the said premises. I also made several neighbours to know about the process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. against the said Surety. I also affixed a copy of the Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. on the Notice Board/conspicuous part of the court. My report is on Process Mark-X having my signature at Point A. This statement is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.02.2013 Tara Dutt Masiwal Vs. Girish Chand Joshi CC No.2894/10 07.02.2013 Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
Accused absent.
It appears that Proceeding against the accused U/s 82 Cr.P.C. has already been completed and direction for registration of FIR against the accused for an offence U/s 174A IPC has already been given. It further appears that wife of the accused namely Seema had executed Surety Bond on 18.02.2011 for appearance of the accused on 19.02.2011 before this court, however, the accused never appeared. When the Notice was tried to be served on the Surety, the Surety was found to be avoiding the service of notice and in such circumstances, Warrant of Attachment was issued against the Surety. However, Warrant of Attachment against the Surety remained unexecuted. As such it was found that Surety had made himself liable to suffer a simple imprisonment as provided in the Proviso appended to Section-446(2) Cr.P.C. Therefore, NBW was also issued against the Surety for that purpose. Even NBW against the Surety remained unexecuted, Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against the Surety Seema. Today statement of Process Server Ct. Ravinder Kumar who is present has been recorded who had executed the Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. against Surety Seema.
It is declared that Proclamation against Surety Seema was published on 10.11.2012 for the appearance on 15.12.2012. By non appearance at the specified time and place, the Surety Seema has committed an offence punishable U/s 174A IPC first part. Let a copy of this order and a copy of statement of Process Server Ct. Ravinder Kumar be sent to the concerned SHO so that he can take appropriate steps against Surety Seema for an offence punishable U/s 174A IPC first part.
In view of the report on Processes U/s 82 Cr.P.C. issued against the accused and also against the Surety Seema, issuance of Process U/s 83 Cr.P.C. would be futile.
Pre-summoning Affidavit of Complainant can always be read in evidence by virtue of Section-145(1) NI Act and, therefore, there is no necessity to proceed U/s 299 Cr.P.C. File may be taken up whenever the accused is apprehended. Let the file be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
07.02.2013
Anil Chemists Vs. Bimal Relhan
CC No.622/10, 623/10, 624/10 & 6776/A/12 07.02.2013 Present: None for the Complainant.
Accused with counsel.
These are four connected matters.
As per submission, mediation failed.
Be awaited for the Complainant.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.02.2013 After lunch time.
Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
Matters settled and accused agreed to pay the amount in installments which is acceptable to the Complainant. Detailed statements of accused and Complainant are recorded. Accused has also paid Rs.10,000/- in cash to the Complainant today.
List on 03.05.2013 at request of both the parties.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
07.02.2013
Anil Chemists Vs. Bimal Relhan
CC No.622/10, 623/10, 624/10 & 6776/A/12 07.02.2013 Statement of accused Bimal Relhan, aged about 49 years, S/o Sh. Chaman Lal, R/o 19-B, U & V, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110088.
On S.A. I, the above named accused do hereby state that these are four connected cases and the present complaint cases have been settled with the Complainant for the total sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- and I undertake to give Complainant Rs.40,000/- on every 20th day of every month in nine equal installments as per settlement and the same will start from 20 th March 2013 and will end on or before 31.10.2013. Complainant is also ready to give flexible in the exact amount of installment in case a reduced amount is paid for the said installment I will make the balance with the next installment. However, no installment shall be less than Rs.25,000/-. It has also been agreed that if no default is made by me in payment of installment then Complainant will let off Rs.20,000/- in the last installment. I will pay the installment in cash to the Complainant in the office of the Complainant against appropriate receipt and only the Complainant shall be entitled to receive the installment. I have paid Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant in cash. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.02.2013 Statement of Mr. Vimal Mahajan, AR of the Complainant, aged about 52 years, S/o Late Sh. B.R. Mahajan, R/o 43/8, First Floor, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008. On S.A. I, the above named Complainant do hereby state that these are four connected cases and the present complaint cases has been settled with the accused for the total sum of Rs.3,60,000/- to which accused undertook to give me Rs.40,000/- on every 20th day of every month in nine equal installments as per settlement and the same will start from 20th March 2013 and will end on or before 31.10.2013. I, on behalf of the Complainant is also ready to give flexible in the exact amount of installment in case a reduced amount is paid for the said installment accused will make the balance with the next installment. However, no installment shall be less than Rs.25,000/-. It has also been agreed that if no default is made by the accused in payment of installment then I will let off Rs.20,000/- in the last installment. Accused also undertook to pay the installment in cash to the me in the office of the Complainant against appropriate receipt. After receiving the entire amount of the settlement, I will withdraw all the cases files against the accused. I have received Rs.10,000/- from the accused today.
RO & AC
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
07.02.2013
Kiran Kwatra Vs. Mohit Kumar Wahdwa
CC No.6382/12
07.02.2013
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Counsel for the accused.
Ld. counsel for the accused has filed his Vakalatnama.
Ld. counsel for the accused has filed an exemption application on behalf of the accused on the ground that accused is out of station. The exemption application is strongly opposed by the ld. counsel for the complainant.
It appears that the conduct of the accused has not been upto the mark and till date accused has never appeared in this case and has deliberately avoided all the processes. On 23.01.2013, NBW was cancelled against the accused upon an application moved by counsel Ms. Neha Bhateja wherein following averment was also made:
8. That the applicant/ accused more carefully in future and appear on each and every date of hearing.
However, despite that accused is not present today and even the said counsel of the accused is also not present. Rather a new counsel for the accused has appeared alongwith an application for exemption. I consider that this is only a deliberate attempt on the part of the accused in avoiding his appearance in the court which cannot be justified on any ground whatsoever. In such circumstances, I find the objection raised ld. counsel for the Complainant justified. The exemption is even otherwise frivolous. No person can claim exemption on the ground that he is out of station for business and atleast such person who is deliberately avoiding his appearance cannot claim exemption on that ground. The exemption application is, therefore, dismissed. Ld. counsel for the accused, however, submits that accused is willing for mediation. Ld. counsel for the Complainant, however, submits that unless the accused puts his appearance, there is no possibility of mediation.
Ld. counsel for the accused is giving an assurance for appearance of the accused on the next date and submits that if the accused does not appear on the next date, the court must issue the NBW but atleast today he is giving an assurance for appearance of accused on the next date.
Considering such assurance, coercive measures are not taken.
However, since accused by his own conduct has delayed the proceeding to a considerable extent, a cost of Rs.5,000/- is imposed upon the accused to be deposited with the Mediation Center, Tis Hazari, Delhi within 10 days.
List for further proceedings on 02.03.2013 at request of both the sides.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.02.2013 M/s Competent Forex Services P. Ltd. Vs. M/s CT India Outbound Holidays P. Ltd.
CC No.6645/A/12 07.02.2013 Present: AR of the Complainant with counsel.
Accused No.3 with counsel.
Bail Bond and Surety Bond furnished by accused No.3. Accepted.
An exemption application has been moved on behalf of accused No.2 on the ground that he is out of India. Ld. counsel for the accused submits that he is ready for arguments even in the absence of accused No.2. Subject to furnishing of relevant documents, the accused is exempted for today.
Ld. counsel for the Complainant has filed reply to the application of accused U/s 145(2) NI Act.
I have heard both the sides. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the application is allowed. Accused may cross-examine the AR of the Complainant.
List on 08.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
07.02.2013
Mohit Gupta Vs. Amir Jahid
CC No.6246/11
07.02.2013
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused with proxy counsel.
At request, matter be sent to Mediation Cell for 11.02.2013 at 11.00 returnable on the same date.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
07.02.2013
Neeraj Jain Vs. Surender Kumar
CC No.5465/11 & 5466/11
07.02.2013
Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
These are two connected matters.
Accused is admitted on bail on furnishing of bail bond and Surety bond to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively in CC No.5465/11 & 5466/11.
An application for waiver of cost has been filed. Ld. counsel submits that accused is chronic patient of pancreatitis and that due to financial crisis on account of his treatment he is unable to pay such heavy cost.
In the circumstances as prayed, the cost is reduced to Rs.3,000/- (combined total).
Ld. counsel for the complainant submits that he will supply the relevant copies to the counsel for the accused.
List for further proceedings by way of summary trial procedure for 02.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.02.2013 M/s Daulat Ram & Sons (RBI Group) Jewellers Vs. Mohit Wadhwa CC No.4069/10 07.02.2013 File taken up for an early hearing moved on behalf of the Complainant.
Present: Proxy counsel for the Complainant.
Ld. Proxy counsel for the Complainant submits that in CC No.6382/11 accused is Mohit Wadhwa who is the accused in this case also and he wants to serve the summons on the accused. He submits that counsel for accused Mohit Wadhwa is available in the court. Counsel Sh. Hiren Sharma for the accused is present in the court, however, he submits that he has instructions only in the CC No.6382/11 in which he has put his appearance but he has not instructions for the present case. Therefore, he cannot receive the summons from the proxy counsel for the complainant. Ld. proxy counsel for the complainant submit that this case may be fixed on 02.03.2013 with CC No.6382/11 so that he can serve the summons on the accused himself.
As prayed, let the file be listed on 02.03.2013. The regular date of this file i.e. 16.05.2013 is cancelled.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
07.02.2013
P.C. Sharma Vs. Virender Kumar
CC No.3070/10
07.02.2013
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Counsel for the accused.
It appears that matter is at the stage of defence evidence. However, an exemption application has been filed on behalf of the accused on the ground that he is ill. Ld. counsel for the accused submits that only accused has to be examined in defence and that he will make a written request U/s 315 Cr.P.C. for this purpose.
Last opportunity is given to the accused.
At request of both the sides, list on 06.03.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
07.02.2013
Pritpal Singh Bhatia Vs. Harmeet Kaur
CC No.4064/10
07.02.2013
Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
Accused with counsel.
An application has been filed by the accused for recalling of DW1 alongwith original cheques.
Ld. counsel for the accused submits that for comparison the expert requires the original cheques and, therefore, the witness DW1 may be called.
It appears that sufficient time was available with the accused to take such steps if original cheques from the bank were required for handwriting expert opinion. However, no such steps have been taken prior to this date. The prime objection taken by the Complainant also is that delay has been caused by the accused. Since accused has been granted opportunity to examine handwriting expert and as per submission, original cheques are required, the application is allowed.
Let DW1 be called alongwith the concerned original three cheques.
Accused to take all necessary steps. Since delay has been caused by the accused, a cost of Rs.5,000/- is imposed upon the accused to be paid to the Complainant.
In terms of earlier orders, concerned SHO be also called upon taking of necessary steps by the accused.
List on 13.03.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
07.02.2013
Sanjeev Vs. Sanjay
CC No.665/10
07.02.2013
Present: Complainant in person.
Accused absent.
Complainant submits that accused will make the payment to him tomorrow.
At request of the Complainant, list on 08.02.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.02.2013 Shri Krishan Kumar Gupta Vs. Shri Dev Raj Gupta CC No.6631/A/12 07.02.2013 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused in person.
Accused is seeking an adjournment for want of his counsel on the ground that father of the counsel has expired on 06.02.2013.
List on 14.03.2013 by way of last opportunity.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
07.02.2013
Subodh Rai Sadh Vs. Shankar Sharma
CC No.6719/12/A
07.02.2013
Present: Proxy counsel for the Complainant.
Accused in person.
Matter is at the stage of further cross-examination of the complainant, however, an exemption application filed on the ground that he is suffering from Back Ache. No details have been provided about the duration. The exemption application is dismissed. One more opportunity is given to the Complainant to appear for his further cross-examination subject to a cost of Rs. 1,000/- to be deposited with Mediation Center, Tis Hazari, Delhi within 10 days.
List on 21.03.2013 for further cross-examination.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
07.02.2013
Sunil Kumar Goel Vs. Sanjeev Kumar
CC No.4534/10
07.02.2013
Present: None.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
07.02.2013
At 02.17 p.m.
Present: None.
Complaint dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
07.02.2013
M/s Kadambari Advertising Vs. Rajeev Mittal
CC No.13/10, 41/10 & 248/10
07.02.2013
Present: Parties with their counsels.
These are three connected matters.
It appears that accused has examined one witness namely Lokesh in his defence. It further appears that earlier accused wanted to examine himself in defence for which he had filed written request. The request was allowed on 08.06.2012 and a single opportunity was directed to be given to the accused to examine himself in defence. Unfortunately on the adjourned date, accused instead of appearing and examining himself in defence, absented himself whereafter opportunity was directed to be closed so far the examination of the accused as defence witness is concerned (order dated 17.08.2012) and, thereafter, accused never prayed for recalling despite three consecutive dates.
I consider that there is no requirement that any person cannot move an application if the court is conducted by Ld. Link MM. Even on the fourth adjourned date, no application for recalling of accused was moved on the said date i.e. 04.01.2013 the opportunity to lead defence evidence was closed in all respect. When the matter was listed for final arguments, the accused moved one application for calling himself as a witness on the specious ground that due to mistake he could not mention his name as a witness in the list of witnesses and, therefore, he be called U/s 311 Cr.P.C. Ld. counsel for the Complainant has opposed the prayer made by the accused.
Ld. counsel for the accused, however, submits that if an opportunity is not granted to the accused, he will not be able to controvert the case of the Complainant by his all available means whereas he is having several documents to be filed in the present case and that he has already supplied copies of those documents to the Complainant. Ld. counsel further submits that earlier upon a written request accused was allowed to examine himself in defence and that Section-311 Cr.P.C. provides that if evidence is essential for the just disposal of the case, the witness must be called and that the section provides a very wide discretion to the court. Ld. counsel further submits that for mistake of counsel litigant should not be made to suffer. Ld. counsel is praying for one opportunity for the cause of justice to examine the accused in defence.
Ld. counsel submits that he will complete the examination on one fixed date and will not take any adjournment.
Having considered all the submissions, and considering the fact that evidence is essential for just disposal of the case and in view of the wide discretion available U/s 311 Cr.P.C., let the accused be called to examine himself in defence on a single opportunity.
As observed above, written request was earlier filed by the accused for his own examination which was allowed on 08.06.2012. Clearly that was fulfilling the purpose of Section-315 Cr.P.C.
It, however, cannot be denied that accused by his own conduct has delayed the matter and, therefore, has made himself liable for a cost of Rs.1200/- (combined total) to be paid to the Complainant within five days.
At request of both the sides, list on 23.02.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.02.2013 Microgene Diagnostic System Vs. Nitin Shah CC No.6117/11 07.02.2013 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Counsel for the accused.
Ld. counsel for the accused has filed an exemption application on the ground that accused is suffering from Viral Fever. Ld. counsel further submits that they have preferred a Revision Petition and the same is listed today itself. It appears that this matter is listed for final arguments, however, ld. counsel for the accused is seeking an adjournment on the ground that he himself is not feeling well and is, therefore, unable to advance arguments. Subject to furnishing of medical papers of the accused, the accused will be exempted for today.
Adjourned for final arguments on 16.02.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.02.2013 M/s Vijay Power Generators Ltd. Vs. Tarun Engineering CC No.2739/10, 2740/10, 4155/10, 4216/10, 4433/10 & 4448/10 07.02.2013 Present: AR of the Complainant.
Accused with counsel.
These are six connected matters.
No time left.
List on 12.02.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.02.2013 M/s Pipeline Products India Vs. M/s Tricolite Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
CC No.6452/1107.02.2013 Record of Plea and examination of accused No.2 Rohit Sharma, aged about 32 years, S/o Late Sh. Shri Niwas Sharma, R/o D-164, Second Floor, Swaran Jayanti Puram, Ghaziabad, U.P. U/s 251, 263(g), 313 read with Section-281(6) Cr. P.C. Without oath I understand the accusation explained over to me. I also understand all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against me. I do not want to plead guilty. I know the complainant. The Cheques in question are drawn on my bank account and bear my signatures. The columns of Cheque Exh.CW1/4 are filled up by me except the column of date. The columns of the Cheque Exh.CW1/5 have not been filled up by me but the same bears my signature. I have given the said cheques in question to the complainant as security purpose for purchase of some goods from the Complainant. I had given the said cheques in question on demand of the Complainant because Complainant asked me that if you want to purchase the goods on credit, firstly you have to deposit security of the goods in the form of two undated cheques, however, no goods were supplied to me, hence I stopped the payment of cheques in question. I have not received any legal demand notice from the complainant. However, the name and address appearing on legal demand and postal articles are correct and are mine, however, the AD Card do not bear my signatures. I had issued instructions to the bank to stop the payment of the cheques. The complaint is not filed by the duly authorized person. Cheque returning memo is not disputed. I have sufficient defence to make. I want to lead Defence Evidence. RO & AC pol (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 07.02.2013