Delhi District Court
Ajay Jain vs . Faquir Chand on 5 July, 2012
Ajay Jain Vs. Faquir Chand C.C.No.6629/12 05.07.2012
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant has filed an application for return of documents on the ground that the Oath Commissioner has not signed the documents.
He submits that all the documents have to be marked and signed by the Oath Commissioner and, therefore, permission may be given and the documents alongwith the earlier affidavit may be returned. He submits that inadvertently the affidavit and original documents have been filed alongwith the complaint.
Considering the circumstances, let the documents (as mentioned in list of documents) of the complainant from Page No.9 to Page No.20 alongwith the affidavit be returned to the complainant so that he can file an affidavit with the documents duly exhibited in accordance with law. Signature of the complainant with the counter signing by the counsel be also taken regarding receiving of all the documents.
Application disposed of.
At request of the ld. counsel, be awaited for filing of affidavit.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/05.07.2012 Ajay Kumar Sawhney Vs. M/s Crest Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
C.C.No.1287/10
05.07.2012
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
NBW issued against accused Vikram Sachdeva received back unexecuted with the report not residing at the said address. It appears that same address was provided by the accused in his bail bond. Clearly accused has deliberately avoided his appearance in the court. As such let a process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. be issued against the accused Vikram Sachdeva.
Notice to Surety Sunila Sachdeva received back unserved with a report no such person is residing at the said address.
It appears that Surety had filed a copy of her FDR.
Let this FDR be attached for a sum of Rs.25,000/-. Attachment Warrant be issued annexing therewith a copy of the copy of FDR. There is, however, no report in respect of accused Vikas Sachdeva. Ahlmad shall clarify.
NBW be also issued against accused Vikas Sachdeva.
Address, if any, to be filed by the complainant.
List on 15.10.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/05.07.2012 Ajay Sethi Vs. Sanjay Handa C.C.No.6294/11 05.07.2012 Present: Complainant in person.
Summons unserved.
A bare perusal of the report goes to show that accused has deliberately avoided the summons.
Consequently a Bailable Warrant in the sum of Rs.30,000/- be issued against the accused for 02.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/05.07.2012 M/s Anu Products Ltd. Vs. Om Keet Nashak & Beej Bhandar & Anr.
C.C.No.6225/11
05.07.2012
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
As per Nazarat Branch, Process still not received back. Even fresh process has not been received back.
Let summons be issued afresh to be served through the concerned CJM for 16.10.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/05.07.2012 M/s Anu Products Ltd. Vs. Surendra Pesticides & Anr.
C.C.No.6226/11
05.07.2012
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Summons issued to the accused for 18.11.2011 received back with a report accused was out of station and, therefore, summons was affixed.
A Bailable Warrant in the sum of Rs.5,000/- be issued against the accused for 16.10.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/05.07.2012 M/s Anu Products Ltd. Vs. Kisan Traders & Anr.
C.C.No.6224/11
05.07.2012
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Summons issued to the accused for 18.11.2011 received back unserved.
Other processes not received back.
Fresh process be issued for 16.10.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/05.07.2012 M/s Anu Products Ltd. Vs. M/s Shree Balaji Krishi Seva Kendra & Ors.
C.C.No.4236/10
05.07.2012
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Still processes have not been received back.
Fresh process be issued through concerned CJM for 16.10.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/05.07.2012 Avinash B. Chordia (HUF) Vs. Tushar Pannalal Sighvi C.C.No.1485/10 05.07.2012 Present: Complainant in person.
Accused absent.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/05.07.2012 At 11.50 a.m. Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
Accused paid Rs.5,000/- as the remaining cost to the complainant.
Both the parties have been heard.
List for pronouncement of judgment on 12.07.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/05.07.2012 M/s Aspen Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Anjul Medicare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
C.C.No.6445/1105.07.2012 Statement of Mr. Girish Gaur, Ld. Counsel for the complainant company. Without oath.
I, the above named counsel for the complainant company do hereby state that I have the instructions from the complainant company to withdraw the present matter since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties in full and final settlement in the present complaint case. Accused company has made the entire settlement amount in the present complaint case. Complainant company has no further grievance against the accused company and nothing remains due towards the accused company in the present complaint case. Therefore, the matter may be treated as compounded U/s 147 NI Act. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/05.07.2012 M/s Aspen Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Anjul Medicare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
C.C.No.6445/1105.07.2012 Present: Ld. Counsel for the complainant company.
The matter is settled.
Separate statement of ld. counsel for the complainant company recorded in this respect.
The matter stands compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
Let the file be list before the Lok Adalat to be held on 14.07.2012 for final disposal.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/05.07.2012 M/s Bharat Insecticides Ltd. Vs. Subhash Das C.C.No.6446/11 05.07.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
There is no report in respect of compliance of last order.
Let it be complied with for 02.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/05.07.2012 M/s Bharat Insecticides Ltd. Vs. Narayana Swamy C.C.No.6447/11 05.07.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Summons issued for the last date received back unserved.
Fresh summons be issued for 02.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/05.07.2012 M/s Ekta Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Darshan Singh Bhullar C.C.No.5159/10 05.07.2012 Present: AR of the complainant.
It appears that complainant was to file fresh address of the accused thereupon process was to be issued.
Complainant not filed any address.
One more opportunity is given subject to a cost of Rs.2,000/- to be deposited with DLSA within 20 days whereupon summons may be issued after filing of fresh address and necessary process fee.
List on 08.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/05.07.2012 Employees Provident Fund Organisation Vs. Ram Kishan Gupta.
C.C.No.2571/1005.07.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Accused in person.
Accused is seeking adjournment on the ground that his counsel cannot appear as son of the counsel has met with an accident.
List on 28.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/05.07.2012 M/s Golden Paper Mart Vs. M/s Surender Copy House & Ors.
C.C.No.6511/12
05.07.2012
Present: None.
There is no compliance of the last order.
Be complied with for 09.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/05.07.2012 Gurcharan Singh Vs. M/s Vijay Associates & Anr.
C.C.No.5913/11
05.07.2012
Present: None for the complainant.
Accused with counsel.
Be awaited for the complainant.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/05.07.2012 At 12.05 p.m. Present: None for the complainant.
Accused with counsel.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/05.07.2012 At 02.40 p.m. Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused with counsel.
An exemption application has been moved on behalf of the AR of the complainant on the ground that the said AR is seriously ill.
It appears that the said AR is required for further cross-examination.
Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that on the last date, cross-examination could not be conducted for want of ld. counsel for the complainant.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant submits that remaining cross-examination of the witness may be concluded even if the ld. counsel for the complainant fails to appear for any reason.
One opportunity for the AR of the complainant to participate in the cross-examination failing which the same shall be closed.
List on 22.08.2012.
At request of ld. counsel for the complainant, date is changed to 27.08.2012 as the same is not opposed by the ld. counsel for the accused.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/05.07.2012 Inderpal Arora Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Thakural C.C.No.6508/12 05.07.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
An exemption application has been filed on behalf of the complainant on the ground that he is suffering from blood pressure.
There is no report regarding compliance of last order.
Be complied with for 09.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/05.07.2012 J.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. D.A. Tony C.C.No.7418/10 05.07.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with proxy counsel.
NBW unexecuted against the accused.
Ld. Proxy counsel, however, submits that in other court process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. has been initiated. He prayed that matter may be adjourned sine die.
It appears that on earlier occasion NBW received with a report no such was residing at the address.
In view of the request made by the proxy counsel, let the file be adjourned sine die.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/05.07.2012 Ajay Jain Vs. Faquir Chand C.C.No.6629/12 05.07.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Complainant has filed affidavit in evidence alongwith documents exhibited before the Oath Commissioner. The same is marked as Mark-R for the purpose of identification.
After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation and jurisdiction (GE Capital Transportation Services Ltd. Vs. Rahisuddin Khan dated 09.09.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi), I am of the opinion that prima facie a case for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is made out against the accused person.
A summons be issued to the accused Faquir Chand for the next date of hearing. Complainant shall file necessary process fee.
Summons shall also be sent through the mode of speed post and authorized courier. Complainant shall ensure the filing of sufficient number of copies of the complaint as provided in section-204(3) Cr.PC.
Complainant to file the Process fees within 10 days.
Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section-204(4) Cr.PC. empowering the court to dismiss the complaint in case steps as directed above are not taken within a reasonable time.
Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial procedure on 16.10.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/05.07.2012 A.K. Roy Vs. V. Venkatesh C.C.No.5420/11 05.07.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
They are seeking sometime.
List on 12.07.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/05.07.2012 Raj Kumar Chhabra Vs. Chaman Lal C.C.No.1784/10 05.07.2012 Present: Complainant in person.
Convict in person.
Warrant of Attachment unexecuted against the convict with a report no such person is residing at the given address. Whereas the convict had provided the same address in his bail bond.
Convict submits that he is residing in Gali No.8, Phase-10, Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094.
Let Warrant of Attachment be issued at this address for Rs.3,30,000/-.
Complainant shall also assist the police officials.
List on 08.08.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/05.07.2012 Rajesh Mehra Vs. Sanjeev Sharma & Ors.
C.C.No.3921/10
05.07.2012
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Counsel for accused No.2.
Ld. Counsel for accused No.2 provided a new address of accused No.1 as House No. 1014, Sector-17, Faridabad, Haryana.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant, however, submits that he has already provided this address in his application dated 18.01.2011.
Ahlmad to report.
A Non Bailable Warrant in terms of order dated 01.05.2012 be issued against the accused No.1.
Ld. Counsel for accused No.2 submits that accused has suffered a heat stroke and, therefore, he could not come. He further submits that accused No.2 is ready to pay the half amount of the cheque to the complainant. The same is not acceptable to the complainant.
Adjourned for appearance of all the accused and for further proceedings on 24.08.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/05.07.2012 M/s M.D. Overseas Ltd. Vs. M/s Uma Shankar Kamal Narain & Ors.
C.C.No.5698/11
05.07.2012
Present: None for the parties.
SI Karamvir Singh is present.
Warrant of Attachment against the convict company received back with a report sentence has been suspended.
A copy of order dated 05.05.2012 of Ld. Appellate Court has also been filed.
File be consigned to Record Room unless otherwise directed by the Ld. Appellate Court.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/05.07.2012 M/s Parash Nath Paper Udhyog VS. M/s Premier Color Cartons (P) Ltd. & Ors.
C.C.No.6571/1205.07.2012 Present: AR of the Complainant with counsel.
Complainant has filed affidavit in evidence alongwith documents exhibited before the Oath Commissioner. The same is marked as Mark-R for the purpose of identification.
After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation and jurisdiction (GE Capital Transportation Services Ltd. Vs. Rahisuddin Khan dated 09.09.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi), I am of the opinion that prima facie a case for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is made out against the accused person.
A summons be issued to accused No.1, 2 and 3 for the next date of hearing. Complainant shall file necessary process fee.
Summons shall also be sent through the mode of speed post and authorized courier. Complainant shall ensure the filing of sufficient number of copies of the complaint as provided in section-204(3) Cr.PC.
Complainant to file the Process fees within 10 days.
Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section-204(4) Cr.PC. empowering the court to dismiss the complaint in case steps as directed above are not taken within a reasonable time.
Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial procedure on 17.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/05.07.2012 M/s Parash Nath Paper Udhyog VS. M/s Premier Color Cartons (P) Ltd. & Ors.
C.C.No.6572/1205.07.2012 Present: AR of the Complainant with counsel.
Complainant has filed affidavit in evidence alongwith documents exhibited before the Oath Commissioner. The same is marked as Mark-R for the purpose of identification.
After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation and jurisdiction (GE Capital Transportation Services Ltd. Vs. Rahisuddin Khan dated 09.09.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi), I am of the opinion that prima facie a case for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is made out against the accused person.
A summons be issued to accused No.1, 2 and 3 for the next date of hearing. Complainant shall file necessary process fee.
Summons shall also be sent through the mode of speed post and authorized courier. Complainant shall ensure the filing of sufficient number of copies of the complaint as provided in section-204(3) Cr.PC.
Complainant to file the Process fees within 10 days.
Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section-204(4) Cr.PC. empowering the court to dismiss the complaint in case steps as directed above are not taken within a reasonable time.
Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial procedure on 17.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/05.07.2012 Ritesh Khullar Vs. Vinod Handa & Ors.
C.C.No.6596/12
05.07.2012
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Summons received back unserved.
It came to the notice that similar reports were received in other files on earlier occasions.
Let the Ahlmad to place some of such files after checking the reports and alongwith this file on 09.07.2012.
The Process Server, concerned Civil Nazir alongwith Movement Register of Process Server, if any, be called for the next date.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/05.07.2012 Shamsher Rana Vs. S.S. Kulkarni C.C.No.1663/10 05.07.2012 Present: None for the complainant.
Accused absent.
Counsel Sh. Kishore Kumar for earlier Surety Manjushri. The Reader of this court submits that the District Nazarat declined to accept the FD of the Surety Manjushri and the other DD which were received from the bank in respect of the latest Surety Ashish Kumar Kanojia.
Ld. Counsel for the Surety Manjushri submits that he will deposit the entire amount of the Surety Bond. However, he submits that FD of Surety Manjurshri may be released to him, so that after encashment, entire amount can be deposited. The concerned branch of the bank is directed to release the amount of the FD No.822784 dated 02.08.2006 in favour of the FD Holder i.e. Surety Manjushri S. Kulkarni.
Let the FD of earlier Surety Manjushri be released to Sh. Kishore Kumar against due acknowledgment. Surety Manjushri to deposit the bond amount within five days. For this purpose, file be listed on 12.07.2012.
It appears that the concerned bank of Surety Ashish Kumar Kanojia had sent a Banker's Cheque in favour of the State for an amount of Rs.20,388/-. It appears that the bond amount was Rs.20,000/- and, therefore, on the last date, direction was made that the said DD be deposited with the Treasury for recovery of Rs.20,000/- and balance amount to be returned to the concerned bank. Since District Nazarat Branch declined to accept the DD, let the direction be given to the concerned bank branch to attach only Rs.20,000/- of the Surety Ashish Kumar Kanojia and remaining amount to be returned to the FDR holder or to continue the remaining amount in the form of FD as per rules. The original DD be also sent to the bank. For this purpose, Warrant of Attachment in the sum of Rs.20,000/- be issued against Surety Ashish Kumar Kanojia through the concerned SHO alongwith the original DD sent by the bank and copy of letter of the State Bank of India dated 17.05.2012.
Assistant Ahlmad has made report that he could not issue the processes in terms of last order and he is seeking one opportunity. Strict warning be issued to the concerned Assistant Ahlmad.
Let NBW and Warrant of Attachment in terms of earlier orders be issued against the accused for 06.08.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/05.07.2012 M/s Art Corner Vs. M/s World Expo & Conventions Management Ltd. & Ors.
C.C.No.5471/11
05.07.2012
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
There is no compliance of the last order.
Assistant Ahlmad has made a report that he could not issue the process and is seeking one opportunity to comply with the order.
Strict warning to be issued to the concerned Assistant Ahlmad.
Let the last order be complied with.
Ahlmad to also make a report about regular process as indicated in the last order.
List on 10.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/05.07.2012 M/s Shivam Enterprises Vs. Ram Kishan Yadav C.C.No.3058/10 05.07.2012 Record of the examination of Accused Ram Kishan Yadav, S/o Sh. Lal Chand Yadav, aged about 53 years, R/o WZ-11A, Plot No.56, Vishnu Park, Near Lal Building School, Chand Nagar, New Delhi-110018 under section 251 and 263(g), 313 r/w Section-281(6) Cr.P.C.
Without oath.
I understand the accusation explained over to me. I do not plead guilty. I also understand all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against me. I know the complainant. The cheques in question belong to my bank account. The cheques bear my signature and I had issued all the cheques to the complainant. I had given the cheques in question to the complainant after receiving the goods from the complainant. I had not received any legal demand notice from the complainant. However, the name and addresses appearing on legal demand notice and postal articles are correct and are mine but at the said address eight tenants are residing and, therefore, letter could not received to me. Cheque Returning Memos are not disputed. I admit that I was not having sufficient funds in my bank account to honour the cheques. I want to pay the amount of the cheques by settling the matter with the complainant.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/05.07.2012 Anil Dhawan Vs. Ms. Sunita Malhotra.
C.C.No.5263/1005.07.2012 Statement of Mr. Anil Dhawan, 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 matter. The matter was settled before the Ld. Revisional Court where I had received Rs.20,000/-. In this court I received Rs.80,000/- on the last date and today I have received Rs.1 lac i.e. remaining amount by way of a DD. Accused has made the entire settlement amount in the present complaint case. 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 treated as compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/05.07.2012 M/s Shivam Enterprises Vs. Ram Kishan Yadav C.C.No.3058/10 05.07.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel Sh. Vijay Babbar.
Accused with counsel Sh. Sunil Sharma.
Accused is admitted on bail subject to furnishing of bail bond and surety bond to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. Bonds furnished by the accused. Accepted.
Accusation explained over to the accused.
His Plea and Examination recorded.
However, he wants to pay the amount of cheques to the complainant after settlement.
At request, matter be sent to Mediation Cell for tomorrow i.e. 09.07.2012 after lunch.
Regular date is 16.07.2012.
At request of ld. counsels, regular date is changed to 21.07.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/05.07.2012 Anil Dhawan Vs. Ms. Sunita Malhotra.
C.C.No.5263/1005.07.2012 Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant has filed his Vakalatnama.
The matter is settled.
Separate statement of complainant recorded in this respect.
The matter stands compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
Let the matter be listed before the Lok Adalat to be held on 14.07.2012 for final disposal.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/05.07.2012 B.M.L. Mittal Vs. M/s Rehan Construction Co. & Ors.
C.C.No.2574/10
05.07.2012
Present: None.
It appears that matter is at the stage of consideration on jurisdiction.
It appears that all such other matters have been allowed to continue vide order dated 04.07.2012.
Let this matter be also allowed to continue.
Adjourned to appearance of complainant and for further proceedings on 17.08.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/05.07.2012 Rapid Diagnostics Vs. S.D. Enterprises C.C.No.4162/1 05.07.2012 Present: None.
This is a Parcha Yaddast as the report of the Ahlmad is that file is not traceable.
Ahlmad is directed to trace the file at the earliest.
List on 13.07.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/05.07.2012