Delhi District Court
State Bank Of India vs . Dr. Sanjay Kumar Bansal on 2 June, 2012
State Bank of India Vs. Dr. Sanjay Kumar Bansal CC No.3454/10 02.06.2012
Present: Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Accused absent.
SHO has submitted his explanation stating that the delivery of Attachment Warrant was an inadvertent mistake on the part of the Process Server and that the same would not be repeated in future. It further appears that on 01.06.2012, the apologies of Constable Balwant Singh was accepted.
A fresh Warrant of Attachment has been received back unexecuted.
A bare perusal of the report coupled with the fact that on earlier occasion Surety was available in his house when the police official inadvertently delivered the Warrant of Attachment. It is clearly going to show that the Surety is deliberately avoiding the attachment.
Consequently, he has to suffer simple imprisonment as provided U/s 446(2) Cr.P.C.
A Non Bailable Warrant, therefore, be issued against the Surety Vijender Arora.
Ahlmad has made a report that due to shortage of time, Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. has not been issued.
Let the same be issued against the accused for 06.08.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 02.06.2012 M/s V. Tax Vs. Sudhir Kumar (Kali) CC No.4673/10 02.06.2012 Present: AR of the complainant.
Accused absent.
Process has not been received back.
Let the same be awaited.
In the meantime, NBW be also issued against the accused.
In terms of earlier orders, both the Process Servers be also called.
List on 05.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 02.06.2012 Ms. Anita Mittal Vs. Ashish Aggarwal CC No.5308/11 02.06.2012 Present: AR of the complainant.
Proxy counsel for the accused.
Surety is absent despite service.
NBW has not been received back.
Fresh NBW be issued against the accused.
Since the Surety has not appeared despite service of Notice, clearly he has not inclined to justify the non appearance which is required U/s 446(1) Cr.P.C.
Ld. Proxy counsel for the accused, however, submits that Surety is not in town.
I consider that he has no authority to make any submission on behalf of the Surety.
A Warrant of Attachment to recover the bond amount be issued against the Surety.
To be listed on 03.08.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 02.06.2012 Jindal Menthol & Investments Ltd. Vs. M/s Hamco Mining & Smelting Ltd. & Ors.
CC No.1923/10
02.06.2012
Present: AR of the complainant.
Proxy counsel for accused No.8.
It appears that opportunity to lead defence evidence was closed in respect of accused No.8 and the matter was directed to be listed for final arguments.
Ld. Proxy counsel for accused No.8 is seeking adjournment on the ground that senior counsel is not available.
It appears that even the accused No.8 is not present and there is no exemption application. Consequently, a Non Bailable Warrant be issued against accused No.8.
It further appears that a Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. was directed to be issued against B.R. Patel, however, there is no compliance in this respect.
Let the same be also complied with for 18.08.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
02.06.2012
Ishwar Singh Tanwar Vs. Rajpal & Anr.
CC No.4836/10
02.06.2012
Statement of CW1 Ishwar Singh Tanwar, Complainant (recalled for cross-examination). XXXXX by Mr. Ratnesh Bansal, Ld. Counsel for the accused. On S.A. I entered into an agreement for sale and purchase with Rajpal and not with Ms. Savitri Devi. The complaint U/s 138 NI Act bears my signature. I have narrated the facts to my counsel that the agreement of sale and purchase was with Rajpal only and I mentioned it in my complaint. Confronted with from Point A to A in the complaint U/s 138 NI Act in Para No.2 wherein it has been stated that complainant entered into an agreement with the wife of accused No.1 i.e. Ms. Savitri Devi. I have not placed the original agreement on judicial record. I have also not brought the same. (Vol. I have possessed the original agreement and can produce). It is wrong to suggest that I have no such agreement, therefore, same has not been filed till date. It is wrong to suggest that the document Exh.CW1/A is false and forged document which does not bear the signature of Rajpal. It is correct to suggest that the documents Exh.CW1/A does not bear the signature of Ms. Savitri Devi. The said agreement was executed in the presence of one Mr. Pawar and one Mr. Vikram Singh. The son of the accused and my son were also present. Except the said persons, no other person was present. The agreement dated 16.12.2005 Exh.CW1/A was signed by Vikram Singh, son of Rajpal as witnesses. The document Exh.CW1/A was filled up by the said Mr. Pawar. I do not know the parentage and address of said Mr. Pawar and Mr. Vikram Singh. It is wrong to suggest that I do not know the whereabouts of Mr. Pawar and Mr. Vikram Singh as they were never met with Rajpal till date and even they did not sign the document Exh.CW1/A. After seeing the document Exh.CW1/A, I am able to say that the same does not bear the signature of Mr. Pawar. I also do not know the full name of said Mr. Pawar.
It is wrong to suggest that I do not had the balance payment for execution of sale deed at the time of execution of agreement. It is wrong to suggest that there was some other agreement which has not placed by me on record. It is wrong to suggest that as I failed to make the balance payment of consideration amount so that my Bayana amount was forfeited. I visited the court situated at Kapashera, Delhi on 16.03.2006 alongwith balance payment of Rs.14,50,000/- (out of which a cheque of Rs.5 lacs and rest of the amount was in cash). I had withdrawn the said cash amount from Vijya Bank, Delhi. Again said some of the amount had been withdrawn from the bank and some amount was taken from my son but I do not know the quantum of such amount. I had withdrawn the cash amount from my bank prior to 2-3 days from 16.03.2006. I have never opened any bank account in Vijay Bank. (Vol. My son is having the account in Vijya Bank). I do not know the bank account number of my son. However, the bank is situated at Naraina Industrial Area, Delhi. I had not withdrawn any account from any bank for making the balance payment to the accused. It is wrong to suggest that my son even never withdrawn any amount from any bank for making the payment to the accused regarding sale and purchase of the property. I had taken the cheque of Rs.5 lacs from son Deepak on 16.03.2006. I do not know the number of said cheque. The said cheque has been cancelled. I cannot bring the said cancelled cheque in the court. I do not know the balance in the account of my son Deepak upto 16.03.2006. It is wrong to suggest that I am not able to produce the said cancelled cheque as no such cheque was ever issued in the name of accused. It is wrong to suggest that my son Deepak is also having no bank account in Vijya Bank, Naraina Industrial Area, Delhi at any point of time. My son Deepak was doing the work of fabrication/stitching at my house upto 16.03.2006. From the said business he used to earn Rs.15-20,000/- per month. I do not know whether my son Deepak was Income Tax Asessee upto 16.03.2006 or not. I was not assessee to the Income Tax till 16.03.2006 and even thereafter since I am having no source of income. Since beginning till date I have no employment of any kind. My family consists of myself, my wife, my three major sons and their wives and their six children. Nobody is dependent upon me. Now my children bear my expenses of fooding.
I visited to the residence of accused once in the month of December 2005 for the purpose of seeing his house only and, thereafter, I never visited the accused. It is correct to suggest that I did not meet with accused on 16.03.2006. (Vol. Accused was not present in the Kapashera court). I met with the accused prior to three days from 16.03.2006. (Vol. I asked Vikram Singh to call accused in the Kapashera Court on 15.03.2006). It is wrong to suggest that Vikram Singh never met with accused. I do not have any knowledge whether Vikram Singh met with accused or not. It is correct to suggest that I personally did not intimate the accused for execution of sale deed. (Vol. The deal was fixed by Vikram Singh, therefore, Vikram Singh always handled all the affairs). I did not disclose the said facts to my counsel for mentioning in my complaint as well as in my affidavit. It is also correct to suggest that I never met with the wife of the accused. It is correct to suggest that accused and his wife never refused to sell the property mentioned in Exh.CW1/A. (Vol. Even I am not aware who is the owner of the property mentioned in Exh.CW1/A and the dealer might be having the knowledge). I have taken Rs.25,000/- from the accused as stated in my complaint in the month of April 2006. I had taken a cheque bearing No. 589035 for a sum of Rs.40,000/- from the accused and the same was duly encashed in my account maintained by me in Punjab National Bank in Naraina Vihar, Delhi. I do not remember the account number of my bank. (Vol. The said cheque was not related with this case as the accused is my relative and had taken that money for his personal use from me). I have no direct or close relation with the accused. (Vol. Sister of accused was got married in my neighborhood namely Prem Singh S/o Chander Singh and his address I do not know). The sister of accused was expired prior to more than 40 years. Mr. Prem Singh was not my real relative. (Vol. He was relative of mine being the neighbors and villager as Chacha). It is correct to suggest that I never visited the residence of accused alongwith Prem Singh or any family member of Prem Singh. I also never visited the residence of accused except once as above stated. I have seen the receipt dated 02.07.2006 which bears my signature at Point A and now same is Exh.CW1/R1.
It is correct to suggest that I had already been filed a civil suit of Rs.1,75,000/- against the accused in the civil court and copy of the same is Mark-A. It is wrong to suggest that we agreed to settle the matter by which the accused became ready to return a sum of Rs.75,000/- only on a humanitarian ground after forfeiting the bond amount. It is correct to suggest that the accused had given me a cheque bearing No.589037 dated 30.10.2006 for a sum of Rs.75,000/- on 20.05.2006. It is wrong to suggest that the said cheque of Rs.75,000/- was towards full and final settlement. It is wrong to suggest that I met with the accused on 02.07.2006 and requested to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000/- in cash in lieu of cheque bearing No.589037 and I also assured him to return the said cheque. On 02.07.2006 I had taken only Rs.25,000/- and not Rs.35,000/- in cash from the accused. It is wrong to suggest that on 02.07.2006 I had taken Rs.35,000/- in cash and a cheque of Rs.40,000/- bearing Cheque No.589035 from the accused towards full and final settlement with a promise to return the cheque in question to the accused. It is wrong to suggest that except the deal of sale and purchase of the property as mentioned in Exh.CW1/A, I never dealt with accused in any manner. I had received the cheque in question Exh.CW1/B from dealer namely Vikram Singh. I have not received the cheque Exh.CW1/B either from accused or his wife and even I have not received the said cheque in the presence of the accused. I am not aware by whom the Cheque Exh.CW1/B was filled up. (Vol. It was brought by dealer Vikram Singh). I had given Rs.10,000/- to the accused first time in the year 2002 which was returned by the accused after 15-20 days. Thereafter, I had given the amount several times to the accused and he used to return me the same every time. The highest amount I had given to the accused was Rs.50,000/- in the year 2005 itself. Out of which Rs.10,000/- was returned to me in cash and Rs.40,000/- by way of cheque. I am not a moneylender. I had given the said amount to the accused from the earning from the Tea Shop at WZ-412, Naraina Village, Delhi. It is correct the premises bearing No.WZ-412, Naraina Village is a residential building since beginning and also used for residential purpose only. I never maintained any record regarding above lending of money to the accused. It is wrong to suggest that I had never given even a single penny to the accused till date. It is wrong to suggest that I cooked a false story to digest a sum of Rs.40,000/- which was given to me by the accused by way of cheque towards full and final settlement of dispute arising qua sale and purchase of the property number as mentioned in Exh.CW1/A. I had not withdrawn a sum of Rs.50,000/- from my bank. However, I kept the said amount with me in my shop. I do not remember the date and month when I had given Rs.50,000/- to the accused. I had given the said amount at my shop. Accused never visited my residence bearing WZ-412, Naraina Village, Delhi as well as WZ-572Q, Naraina Village, Delhi. (Vol. He visited at my Naraina Village shop). I do not know the designation of the accused, however, he is working in MCD. I do not know whether the accused was the employee in ESI Dispensary, New Delhi. (Vol. I do not know where he was working. Accused told me that he is working in MCD in the year 2002 itself). It is wrong to suggest that the accused never told me that where he is working. I did not go through the contents of the complaint but the contents of the same have been explained to me by my counsel. (Vol. I am 8th class pass. I cannot read or write English).
Cross-examination deferred at the request of ld. counsel for the complainant.
RO & AC
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
02.06.2012
Ishwar Singh Tanwar Vs. Rajpal & Anr.
CC No.4836/10
02.06.2012
Present: Both the parties with their ld. counsels.
Complainant cross-examined in part. Cross-examination deferred at request of ld. counsel for the complainant.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant is, however, not available as he had to go to Hon'ble Patiala House Court as submitted by the complainant.
Adjourned for further cross-examination on 28.07.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 02.06.2012 Raja Ram Vs. P. Tex Builders CC No.393/10 02.06.2012 Statement of CW1 Mr. Jitender Kumar Jain, AR of the complainant (recalled for further cross-examination).
XXXXX by Mr. Dinesh Singh Chaudhary, Ld. Counsel for accused No.5. On S.A. I am graduate in B.Com (Hons). I can read and understand Hindi and English languages but can write English a little bit. The complainant firm is engaged in the business of Paper Trading and not of Money lending business. The Legal Demand Notice as issued pertaining to this case was issued by the advocate on my instructions. I had gone through the contents of the said legal demand notice before issuing the same. The Legal Demand Notice was dispatched by my advocate. The Legal Demand Notice Exh.CW1/6 as placed on record was issued under my instructions. It is correct that there is nothing on record to show that the Legal Demand Notice Exh.CW1/6 was either sent to accused No.5 or not except a document Exh.CW1/8 (in which the name of Sunil Kumar Jain/accused No.5 is mentioned at Sl. No.6). The only Legal Demand Notice as Exh.CW1/6 was sent pertaining to this case. It is wrong to suggest that no Legal Demand Notice was issued to accused No.5 and, therefore, there is no proof in that regard in this case file. It is correct that as per the contents of the Legal Demand Notice Exh.CW1/6, the loan was borrowed by accused No.2. It is wrong to suggest that as per the contents of Legal Demand Notice Exh.CW1/6, the loan was not advanced to the accused No.1 company and the other persons except addressee No.2 of the Legal Demand Notice were not liable for the said loan amount. No other Legal Demand Notice except Exh.CW1/6 was issued pertaining to this case. It is correct that the Legal Demand Notice Exh.CW1/6 and copy of Legal Demand Notice as Annexure-C-6 (as available on record which is Exh.CW1/A1) are different. It is wrong to suggest that the copy of Legal Demand Notice Exh.CW1/A1 has been filed after manipulation of the same by me. It is wrong to suggest that the Legal Demand Notice Exh.CW1/A1 was malafidely and intentionally manipulated for the purpose of misleading the Hon'ble Court and to drag the other accused/noticees No.3 to 7 in the present litigation. I do not know whether the legal demand notice Exh.CW1/A1 was issued by my counsel or not. (Vol. The Legal Demand Notice was issued by my counsel, therefore, I cannot say about the same).
The complainant firm is engaged in the business of Paper Trading since the year 1970. At that point of time, the complainant firm was a Partnership Firm but I was not a partner. I do not recollect who were the Partners in the said firm in the year 1970.
Cross-examination deferred at request of ld. counsel for accused No.5. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 02.06.2012 Zuber Ali Khan Vs. Mubashhir Khan CC No.943/10 02.06.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused absent.
It appears that on 20.04.2012, NBW was cancelled. It further appears that NBW was cancelled primarily on the ground that accused was permanently exempted and that on the fixed date ld. counsel was busy in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Today, however, neither the accused nor his ld. counsel is available. As such NBW be issued for 07.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 02.06.2012 Raja Ram Vs. P. Tex Builders CC No.393/10 02.06.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with proxy counsel.
Accused No.2, 3, 4 and 5 with ld. counsels.
AR of the complainant cross-examined in part by the ld. counsel for accused No.5.
Cross-examination deferred due to electricity problem and at request of ld. counsel for accused No.5.
List on 12.07.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 02.06.2012 M/s Chandra Lakshmi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Kanodia CC No.4609/10 02.06.2012 Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
Accused has deposited the cost of Rs.3,000/- with the DLSA. Copy of receipt taken on record.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant wants to file reply to the application moved by the accused.
List on 29.06.2012.
At request of the parties, dated is changed to 30.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 02.06.2012 M/s Optima Industries Vs. S.K. Sinha CC No.4778/10 & 4779/10 02.06.2012 Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
These are two matters.
Parties submit that they have settled these matters in a Mediation proceeding held for some other case which was pending between the same parties. They have filed an order of Mediation Centre. As parties submit that these two matters may be treated as compounded.
Statement of AR of the complainant recorded.
Matter stands compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
Bonds discharged. Original documents, if any, be discharged after due formalities.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 02.06.2012 Ms. Durgeshwari Devi Vs. Shri Sripal CC No.4134/10 02.06.2012 Present: None.
It appears that issue in the present case relates to the interpretation of Section-421, 431 r/w Form-43, Schedule-2 Cr.P.C.
It appears that when an Attachment Warrant was issued some movable properties of Surety were attached and deposited by the police officials in the Malkhana. It further appears that as per the police authorities, there are no guidelines or rules prescribing the sale of attached property as mentioned in Form-43. It further appears that as per the District Nazir, they are also having no guidelines in this respect.
It appears that U/s 476 Cr.P.C., the form prescribed in the Second Schedule is to be used subject to the power conferred upon the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi under the Article 227 of Constitution of India. It appears that Form-43 prescribes that Warrant of Attachment may be issued to the police officials with a direction to attach and sell the property. However, police officials are not having any rules or guidelines to sell the attached property. Even the District Nazir has no guidelines in respect of sale of any property attached under Form-43, Schedule-2 Cr.P.C.
I consider that before proceeding any further, a report may be obtained whether Form-43 has been varied by the Superior Authority at any point of time or whether the form prescribed under the Old Criminal Procedure Code has been directed to continue.
In this respect, let a Notice be issued to the concerned Record Clerk in the concerned branch who is dealing with the notifications/rules etc. in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
List on 18.07.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 02.06.2012