Delhi District Court
M/S Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd. vs Vikram Bakshi & Ors. on 10 August, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY GUPTA, ACMM, (SPL ACTS)
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
M/s Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs Vikram Bakshi & Ors.
CC No.2100/3
ORDER
1. This order shall dispose of the application filed by the complainant no.3 seeking early hearing of the application for cancellation of bail of accused Vikram Bakshi.
2. In this matter, three consecutive dates for hearing the arguments on all pending applications have already been fixed i.e 03.09.11, 05.09.11 and 06.09.11. After the matter was adjourned for the aforesaid dates, the instant application has been filed by the complainant no.3. It is stated that the application for cancellation of bail is pending since October, 2010 and it has already been listed for around five times. It is further stated that this court is the second or third court before whom the application for cancellation of bail of the accused is being argued.
3. It is further stated that application for cancellation of bail has to be treated on as much priority as an application for grant of bail, because if the application has merit, then for each day, the person M/s Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd vs Vikram Bakshi & Ors CC No.2100/3 1 whose bail warrants cancellation walks a free man is another day of insult to the dignity and authority of the court that granted him bail. It is also stated that when if a particular issue is being tried on a particular date, then it must carried over to the next working and same cannot be adjourned to some other date. It is also stated that due to many reasons, including the fact that rosters change, and it is impossible for a party to continue arguing on a particular issue from scratch before a new Judge.
4. It is further stated that application for cancellation of bail may be re notified and be heard and disposed off in next few days. It is also prayed that in case this court is swamped with the work, it is required to approach the Hon'ble District Judge and as per Hon'ble Delhi High Court Rules, seek from him to release such number of matters from the court as may be necessary to enable this court to do justice to the present matter.
5. It is also prayed that accused persons are continuing to repeat the offences, continuing to fabricate documents and evidences and are continuing to intimidate the witnesses and if this court cannot spare the time to efficiently dispose off the application for cancellation of M/s Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd vs Vikram Bakshi & Ors CC No.2100/3 2 bail of accused, this court may allow withdrawal of the application for cancellation of bail filed before this court to approach the Hon'ble Higher Courts.
6. Accused persons did not file reply to this application and Sh. Hariharan, Ld. Counsel for accused submitted that he is a counsel in the matter of '2G scam cases' and for the entire month of August, 2011, he has to appear regularly in that matter. He also submitted that this court has already given three consecutive dates for hearing arguments on the application for cancellation of bail and other applications in one stretch. Mr. Hariharan further submits that he will concluding his arguments on the pending applications on the next date and will not seek any adjournment for addressing his arguments.
7. I have heard the submissions of complainant no.3 as well as Ld. Counsel for accused and gone through the record of the case. Perusal of record shows that an application for cancellation of bail of accused Vikram Bakshi was filed on 02.11.10 and this application was adjourned for arguments by the Ld. Predecessor for 05.04.11. This matter came before this very court for the first time on 05.04.11. and M/s Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd vs Vikram Bakshi & Ors CC No.2100/3 3 on that date a lot of time was devoted to this matter and lengthy arguments were preferred and only the arguments of complainant no. 3 could conclude. Hence, the matter was adjourned for 07.05.11 for further arguments on this application. On 07.05.11 this court was on leave and matter was adjourned by the Ld. Link M.M. for 10.05.11.
8. It is pertinent to mention here that four different miscellaneous applications were filed in between the next date of hearing by the complainant no.3. Out of which one application was filed u/s 91 Cr.P.C seeking summoning of certain documents and on the request of complainant no.3, notice was issued to the accused persons on his other three applications. On 23.04.11 the complainant no.3 pressed for exparte order on the application u/s 91 Cr.P.C, however, this court deemed it appropriate that accused persons should also be heard on this application and notice of this application was also issued to the accused for 07.05.11. On 07.05.11 this court was on leave and matter was adjourned for 10.05.11 by the Ld. Link M.M.
9. On 10.05.11 no hearing took place on the application for cancellation of bail of the accused as complainant no.3 had filed four applications and copy of those applications were supplied and reply to these M/s Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd vs Vikram Bakshi & Ors CC No.2100/3 4 applications were called for. It is pertinent to note that this bunch of four miscellaneous applications, also consisted one application u/s 91 Cr.P.C and complaint had sought summoning of certain documents for addressing his arguments on the application for cancellation of bail of the accused. Thus, this application was to be disposed off prior to the application for cancellation of bail. Thus, on 10.05.11, this court had adjourned the matter and hearing on the application for cancellation of bail could not take place due to in between filing of four applications by the complainant no.3 and matter was adjourned for 02.07.11. On 02.07.11 adjournment sought on behalf of the accused persons on the ground that their counsel Mr. Hariharan had fallen from the stairs and received injury and had been advised bed rest. Thus, matter was adjourned for 20.07.11 for arguments at 2.30 pm on all the pending application.
10.On 20.07.11, though the matter was listed for 2.30 pm, however, the complainant no.3 as well as Ld. Counsel for accused were present in the morning hours, therefore, at their joint requests, the matter was taken up in the morning hour at 12.00 noon for arguments. On this day an application was filed on behalf of the accused along with copy of the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking restrainment M/s Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd vs Vikram Bakshi & Ors CC No.2100/3 5 of complainant no.3 for addressing arguments in person and also on behalf of complainant no.1 and 2. Complainant no.3 stated that he did not want to file reply to this application and straightway preferred to address his arguments on this application. Since the authority/locus of complainant no.3 was challenged, therefore, arguments were heard on this application. Ld. Counsel for accused concluded his arguments by 1.35 pm and matter was passed over for post lunch sessions for arguments on behalf of the complainant.
11. After lunch, this court remained fully occupied for looking after the transfer cases work of Ld. CCM as well as miscellaneous work and SARFEASI Act matters of this court which is to be taken up at 2.00 pm. The aforesaid work is usually of very urgent nature and is to be given priority. The entire time of post lunch sessions was consumed in dealing with the aforesaid work and therefore, this court had to adjourn all the application for arguments for 03.09.11, 05.09.11 and 06.09.11. Keeping in view of the fact that many applications are pending, this court had given three consecutive dates of hearing i.e. 03.09.11, 05.09.11 and 06.09.11, on 20.07.11 itself. Now the instant application for early hearing of the matter has been filed. M/s Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd vs Vikram Bakshi & Ors CC No.2100/3 6
12. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant no.3 had earlier also filed three applications, one application seeking cancellation of bail of the accused Vikram Bakshi for his acting as a director of the complainant company and another application seeking summoning of certain documents and issuance of search warrants of certain documents for addressing arguments on the application for cancellation of bail. Both these applications were disposed off with the detailed order passed by my Ld. Predecessor. Application seeking summoning of certain documents was dismissed observing that 'necessity and desirability were not established'. It is also pertinent to mention here that even the previous application of the complainant no.3 seeking cancellation of bail of accused Vikram Bakshi has already been dismissed. The Ld. Predecessor of this court had dismissed the earlier application for cancellation of bail filed by the complainant no.3 with the following observations: "the questions whether the accused ceased to be Directors and still acted as Directors are all matter of trial and on this ground, neither cancellation of bail is made out, nor accused Vikram Bakshi can be denied bail"
"...there has to be strong reasons for cancellation of bail and the court do not find any circumstances at this stage".
13.After that another application for cancellation of bail of accused has been filed stating that accused is repeating the offence by acting as a M/s Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd vs Vikram Bakshi & Ors CC No.2100/3 7 director of the complainant company during the course of trial. It is pertinent to mention here that every effort is being made to dispose off this application at the earliest. However, it is further pertinent to note that in this court there are about 4000 cases pending and every endeavour is being made to dispose off the pending cases as expeditiously as possible. It is further pertinent to note that this court is the court of Special Act and dealing with warrant triable/summons triable complaint cases only. In these cases, firstly presummoning evidence is to be recorded and after that postcharge evidence is to be recorded and some time evidence is to be recorded twice or thrice. Trial of such cases do take much time than that of other cases where evidence is recorded only once. This court is also having many old cases and cases pertaining to Senior Citizen which are also to be taken on top priority as per the direction of Hon'ble High Court. Thus, it is not possible to adjourn every such case for the next date wherein the arguments are heard partly. Moreover, this court has already given three consecutive dates for hearing arguments on all the pending applications. As such, the date of hearing on the application for cancellation of bail, cannot be preponed due the aforesaid facts and circumstances. Application is disposed of accordingly. However, it is hereby made clear that no further M/s Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd vs Vikram Bakshi & Ors CC No.2100/3 8 opportunity shall be granted to the accused on any ground whatsoever and arguments would be heard on all the pending applications on the date already fixed.
(AJAY GUPTA) ACMM (Spl. Act)/CENTRAL DELHI/10.08.11 Announced in open court on 10.08.11 M/s Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd vs Vikram Bakshi & Ors CC No.2100/3 9