Delhi District Court
M/S Bright Sanitation vs . M/S Shri Mahavir Industries on 11 October, 2012
M/s Bright Sanitation Vs. M/s Shri Mahavir Industries
CC No.6872/12 & 6873/12
11.10.2012
Present: None.
These are two connected matters.
Complainant to make up deficiencies in court fee at the earliest.
List on 16.10.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
11.10.2012
M/s Dhanuka Agritech Ltd. Vs. M/s Ramsharan Patel & Brothers & Anr.
CC No.4213/10
11.10.2012
Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
It appears that pre-summoning evidence has already been tendered before the Ld.
Predecessor on 04.09.2009.
Let the complainant to file proof of delivery in respect of legal demand notice.
24.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
11.10.2012
Dipesh Dutta Vs. Ratan Lal
CC No.2770/10
11.10.2012
Present: None.
Notice to the Process Server not received.
Fresh notice be issued for 19.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
11.10.2012
M/s HBS Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manish Jain
CC No.3801/10, 3818/10 & 3840/10
11.10.2012
Present: AR of the complainant.
Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. received back.
Process Server be called for 30.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
11.10.2012
Karamvir Tyagi Vs. Manoj Kumar
CC No.669/10
11.10.2012
Present: None for the complainant.
Accused in person.
File be awaited from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Accused submits that the date therein is 22.12.2012.
Let the matter be awaited for 20.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
11.10.2012
M/s Kesari Oils Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Powerware India Pvt. Ltd.
CC No.479/10
11.10.2012
Present: AR of the complainant.
Counsel for the accused on Memo of Appearance.
It appears that accused is in habit of delaying the matter by non appearance on several
times and sending different counsels on subsequent occasions. The matter is of the year 2005 but
the delay has occurred primarily due to the conduct attributable to the accused. A bare perusal of
the file goes to show that accused has delayed the matter to the fullest extent by his conduct of
non appearance and sending different counsels.
The present counsels is again seeking adjournment. Since the complainant has arrayed the
company as an accused, the company shall be at liberty to appoint its AR U/s 305 Cr.P.C. after
which matter shall be proceeded. A cost of Rs.5,000/- is, therefore, imposed on the accused to be
deposited with DLSA within 10 days. Accused company to appoint its AR and let the file be
listed on 16.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
11.10.2012
Mohd. Sajid Vs. M/s M.V.S. Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
CC No.441/10
11.10.2012
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused absent.
Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. issued for 17.08.2012 has been received back.
Let the Process Server be called for 29.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
11.10.2012
M/s Aman Enterprises Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
CC No.4608A/10
11.10.2012
Present: AR of the complainant.
BW unexecuted.
Fresh BW be only issued if complainant files fresh address of the accused for 31.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
11.10.2012
M/s Anu Products Vs. M/s Annapurna Fertilizer Agency & Damodar Prasad Gupta
CC No.3164/10
11.10.2012
Statement of Mr. Vijay Kumar Dwivedi, AR of the Complainant company.
On S.A.
I, the above named AR of the complainant company do hereby state that I do not want to
prosecute the present matter since the accused Damodar Prasad Gupta has died.
Therefore, I may be allowed to withdraw the present complaint case.
RO & AC
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
11.10.2012
Naresh Jain Vs. Vikram Kukreja
CC No.5778/11
11.10.2012
Statement of Mr. S.K. Mittal, Ld. Counsel for the Complainant.
Without Oath.
I, the above named counsel for the complainant do hereby state that accused No.1 Vikram
Kukreja is the Proprietor of the accused firm. I have instructions from the complainant not to
prosecute the present complaint case against accused No.2 and 3 as the present cheque has been
issued by the accused No.1 being the proprietor.
RO & AC
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
11.10.2012
Naresh Jain Vs. Vikram Kukreja
CC No.5772/11
11.10.2012
Statement of Mr. S.K. Mittal, Ld. Counsel for the Complainant.
Without Oath.
I, the above named counsel for the complainant do hereby state that accused No.1 Vikram
Kukreja is the Proprietor of the accused firm. I have instructions from the complainant not to
prosecute the present complaint case against accused No.2 and 3 as the present cheque has been
issued by the accused No.1 being the proprietor.
RO & AC
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
11.10.2012
Sanjiv Aggarwal Vs. M/s World Class India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
CC No.5210/10
11.10.2012
Present: None.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
11.10.2012
At this stage, complainant appeared.
At his request, last opportunity is given.
List on 03.02.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
11.10.2012
Sarfaraz Alam Vs. Rajeev Elwadhi
CC No.4025/10
11.10.2012
Present: None.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
11.10.2012
At 03.25 p.m.
Present: None.
Complaint dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
11.10.2012
Saransh Finance Vs. Ms. Kaushal
CC No.4221/10
11.10.2012
Present: Proxy counsel for the complainant.
Counsel for the accused.
This is a Parcha Yaddast as the file is before the Ld. Revisional Court.
Both the ld. counsels submit that the date therein in 16.11.2012.
File be awaited for 01.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
11.10.2012
M/s SMV Overseas Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Bhangar International & Ors.
CC No.1156/10
11.10.2012
Present: Counsels for both the sides.
An exemption application has been filed on behalf of the accused supported with a
medical certificate.
Last opportunity for the accused.
List on 24.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
11.10.2012
M/s Anu Products Ltd. Vs. M/s Annapurna Fertilizer Agency & Damodar Prasad Gupta
CC No.3164/10
11.10.2012
Present: None.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
11.10.2012
At this stage, AR of the complainant with counsel appeared.
The matter is withdrawn by the AR.
Separate statement of AR recorded in this respect.
Matter is dismissed as withdrawn.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
11.10.2012
Thakar Chemicals Ltd. Vs. M/s Amrit Seed & Pesticides
CC No.5628/10 & 5629/10
11.10.2012
Present: AR of the complainant.
These are two connected matters.
Notice issued to the Surety Jitender Singh unserved.
Let NBW be issued against the accused for 16.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
11.10.2012
Vinod Kumar Vs. Brahm Swaroop
CC No.6915/12
11.10.2012
Present: Complainant in person.
Complainant to make up the deficiencies in court fee.
List on 16.10.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
11.10.2012
M/s Empire Home Appliances Ltd. Vs. M/s Ashoka Electronics
CC No.2000/10
11.10.2012
Present: None.
By way of last opportunity, adjourned to 01.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
11.10.2012
M/s Meditech Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gemini Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Ors.
CC No.2948/10
11.10.2012
Present: None.
By way of last opportunity, adjourned to 01.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
11.10.2012
Bhagwan Singh Vs. M/s Vridhi Packers
CC No.6062/A
11.10.2012
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused in person.
Accused is seeking an adjournment on the ground that some relative of ld. counsel has
expired.
In view of the earlier conduct of the accused wherein he was deliberately avoiding his
appearance in the court despite repeated efforts, I am not inclined to give any further opportunity
but since presence of Lawyer is necessary in a criminal trial. I am giving an adjournment to the
accused subject to a cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the complainant.
File shall be listed on 01.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
11.10.2012
M/s Spykar Lifestyles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Bomb Shell Freedom Clothing
CC No.2684/10
11.10.2012
Present: None.
By way of last opportunity, adjourned to 01.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
11.10.2012
Ginni International Ltd. Vs. Jak Traders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
CC No.5013/10 & 5914/11
11.10.2012
Present: AR of the complainant with proxy counsel.
Accused No.4 with counsel.
These are two connected matters.
Exemption application has been filed on behalf of accused No.2 and 3.
Ld. proxy counsel for the complainant is seeking adjournment on the ground that ld. main
counsel is not available.
Let the matters be adjourned for 06.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
11.10.2012
Bhupesh Arora Vs. Bharat Sharma
CC No.5334/11
11.10.2012
Present: None.
Notice issued to the complainant unserved.
BW issued to the accused unexecuted.
Fresh Notice be issued to the complainant and fresh BW be issued against the accused for
02.02.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
11.10.2012
M/s Naman Communications Vs. Priti Yadav
CC No.2725/10
11.10.2012
Statement of Mr. Parmod Varma, AR of the Complainant (recalled for further cross-
examination on an application U/s 145(2) NI Act).
XXXXX by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
On S.A.
The MoU dated 27.02.2008 between Sahara Samay and M/s Naman Communication was
not executed in my presence. M/s Naman Communication has given a Demand Draft of Rs.1.25
crores against the aforesaid MoU dated 27.02.2008 to Sahara Samay. M/s Naman
Communication also paid bank guarantee of Rs.2.50 crores to Sahara Samay. The Demand Draft
of Rs.21 lacs was paid on 27.02.2008 and Rs.1.04 crores regarding above said MoU was given
on 10.03.2008. I am filing the Statement of Account pertaining to this payment which is Mark-
A. Sahara Samay did not invoke the bank guarantee given to the Sahara Samay. It is correct that
as per M/s Naman Communication has to pay a sum of Rs.1.25 crores per month for two years to
Sahara Samay, the period mentioned in MoU dated 27.02.2008. M/s Naman Communication paid
total amount of Rs.2.50 crores including the security of Rs.1.25 crores which was adjusted
against the expenses. Again said it was payment of next month. It is correct that M/s Naman
Communication did not pay any other amount to the Sahara Samay except the amount of Rs.2.50
crores as mentioned above. (Vol. The partner of M/s Naman Communication i.e. Prabhatam
Advertising Pvt. Ltd. has made a payment of Rs.1 crore including TDS to Sahara Samay
excluding Rs.2.50 crores as mentioning above). It is correct that M/s Naman Communication did
not pay a sum of Rs.1.25 crores to Sahara Samay in the month of June 2008 but Sahara Samay
adjusted our security amount of Rs.1.25 crores in the month of June 2008 against the monthly
payment as Pankaj Films failed to make payment. It is correct that in the month of July 2008
monthly payment of Rs.1.25 crores was not paid but Partner of M/s Naman Communication i.e.
Prabhatam Advertising Pvt. Ltd. has made Rs.1 crore against the monthly payment to Sahara
Samay. It is correct that M/s Naman Communication did not pay Rs.1.25 crores to Sahara Samay
in the month of July 2008 and the same is the answer regarding monthly payment which was to
be given by M/s Naman Communication to M/s Sahara Samay. (Vol. As Pankaj Films have not
paid the committed amount as per agreement).
Q. I put it to you that it is mentioned at Para-7 of the agreement between Sahara Samay and
M/s Naman Communication that M/s Naman Communication shall pay Security Deposit by way
of DD to Sahara Samay which amount shall be equivalent to ONE months Consideration i.e. Rs.
1.25 crores. In Addition, M/s Naman Communication shall also provide a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 2.50 crores equivalent to the consideration of two months. Subsequently, M/s Naman Communication shall ensure to pay to Sahara Rs.1.25 crores every month before the end of succeeding month, irrespective of any profit or loss to M/s Naman Communication. In an unlikely event of M/s Naman Communication's failure to pay in time, Sahara Samay reserves the right to invoke Bank Guarantee for appropriation of dues and terminate the MoU without liability. What do you have to say ?
Ans. It is correct that above mentioned clause exists in the agreement dated 27.02.2008.
The Prabhatam Advertising Pvt. Ltd. is doing business of advertising in the Print Media and M/s Naman Communication is doing the business in TV Channels. The instruction to issue legal demand notice U/s 138 NI Act was given in my presence. Sh. Rakesh Sharma, CEO of the Group Companies and Firms has given instructions to issue legal demand notice. I do not remember whether Sh. Rakesh Sharma, CEO, Group Companies and Firms including M/s Naman Communication was authorized to initiate any legal proceeding including instructions to issue legal notice against any person or not. I do not know whether any Board Resolution exists regarding authorization of Sh. Rakesh Sharma to initiate any legal proceeding including instructions to issue legal notice against any person or not.
Cross-examination further deferred at request of ld. counsel for the accused as he is feeling unwell today.
RO & AC
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
11.10.2012
M/s Naman Communications Vs. Priti Yadav
CC No.2720/10
11.10.2012
Statement of Mr. Parmod Varma, AR of the Complainant (recalled for further cross- examination on an application U/s 145(2) NI Act).
XXXXX by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
On S.A. The MoU dated 27.02.2008 between Sahara Samay and M/s Naman Communication was not executed in my presence. M/s Naman Communication has given a Demand Draft of Rs.1.25 crores against the aforesaid MoU dated 27.02.2008 to Sahara Samay. M/s Naman Communication also paid bank guarantee of Rs.2.50 crores to Sahara Samay. The Demand Draft of Rs.21 lacs was paid on 27.02.2008 and Rs.1.04 crores regarding above said MoU was given on 10.03.2008. I am filing the Statement of Account pertaining to this payment which is Mark- A. Sahara Samay did not invoke the bank guarantee given to the Sahara Samay. It is correct that as per M/s Naman Communication has to pay a sum of Rs.1.25 crores per month for two years to Sahara Samay, the period mentioned in MoU dated 27.02.2008. M/s Naman Communication paid total amount of Rs.2.50 crores including the security of Rs.1.25 crores which was adjusted against the expenses. Again said it was payment of next month. It is correct that M/s Naman Communication did not pay any other amount to the Sahara Samay except the amount of Rs.2.50 crores as mentioned above. (Vol. The partner of M/s Naman Communication i.e. Prabhatam Advertising Pvt. Ltd. has made a payment of Rs.1 crore including TDS to Sahara Samay excluding Rs.2.50 crores as mentioning above). It is correct that M/s Naman Communication did not pay a sum of Rs.1.25 crores to Sahara Samay in the month of June 2008 but Sahara Samay adjusted our security amount of Rs.1.25 crores in the month of June 2008 against the monthly payment as Pankaj Films failed to make payment. It is correct that in the month of July 2008 monthly payment of Rs.1.25 crores was not paid but Partner of M/s Naman Communication i.e. Prabhatam Advertising Pvt. Ltd. has made Rs.1 crore against the monthly payment to Sahara Samay. It is correct that M/s Naman Communication did not pay Rs.1.25 crores to Sahara Samay in the month of July 2008 and the same is the answer regarding monthly payment which was to be given by M/s Naman Communication to M/s Sahara Samay. (Vol. As Pankaj Films have not paid the committed amount as per agreement).
Q. I put it to you that it is mentioned at Para-7 of the agreement between Sahara Samay and M/s Naman Communication that M/s Naman Communication shall pay Security Deposit by way of DD to Sahara Samay which amount shall be equivalent to ONE months Consideration i.e. Rs. 1.25 crores. In Addition, M/s Naman Communication shall also provide a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 2.50 crores equivalent to the consideration of two months. Subsequently, M/s Naman Communication shall ensure to pay to Sahara Rs.1.25 crores every month before the end of succeeding month, irrespective of any profit or loss to M/s Naman Communication. In an unlikely event of M/s Naman Communication's failure to pay in time, Sahara Samay reserves the right to invoke Bank Guarantee for appropriation of dues and terminate the MoU without liability. What do you have to say ?
Ans. It is correct that above mentioned clause exists in the agreement dated 27.02.2008.
The Prabhatam Advertising Pvt. Ltd. is doing business of advertising in the Print Media and M/s Naman Communication is doing the business in TV Channels. The instruction to issue legal demand notice U/s 138 NI Act was given in my presence. Sh. Rakesh Sharma, CEO of the Group Companies and Firms has given instructions to issue legal demand notice. I do not remember whether Sh. Rakesh Sharma, CEO, Group Companies and Firms including M/s Naman Communication was authorized to initiate any legal proceeding including instructions to issue legal notice against any person or not. I do not know whether any Board Resolution exists regarding authorization of Sh. Rakesh Sharma to initiate any legal proceeding including instructions to issue legal notice against any person or not.
Cross-examination further deferred at request of ld. counsel for the accused as he is feeling unwell today.
RO & AC
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
11.10.2012
M/s Naman Communications Vs. Priti Yadav
CC No.2726/10
11.10.2012
Statement of Mr. Parmod Varma, AR of the Complainant (recalled for further cross- examination on an application U/s 145(2) NI Act).
XXXXX by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
On S.A. The MoU dated 27.02.2008 between Sahara Samay and M/s Naman Communication was not executed in my presence. M/s Naman Communication has given a Demand Draft of Rs.1.25 crores against the aforesaid MoU dated 27.02.2008 to Sahara Samay. M/s Naman Communication also paid bank guarantee of Rs.2.50 crores to Sahara Samay. The Demand Draft of Rs.21 lacs was paid on 27.02.2008 and Rs.1.04 crores regarding above said MoU was given on 10.03.2008. I am filing the Statement of Account pertaining to this payment which is Mark- A. Sahara Samay did not invoke the bank guarantee given to the Sahara Samay. It is correct that as per M/s Naman Communication has to pay a sum of Rs.1.25 crores per month for two years to Sahara Samay, the period mentioned in MoU dated 27.02.2008. M/s Naman Communication paid total amount of Rs.2.50 crores including the security of Rs.1.25 crores which was adjusted against the expenses. Again said it was payment of next month. It is correct that M/s Naman Communication did not pay any other amount to the Sahara Samay except the amount of Rs.2.50 crores as mentioned above. (Vol. The partner of M/s Naman Communication i.e. Prabhatam Advertising Pvt. Ltd. has made a payment of Rs.1 crore including TDS to Sahara Samay excluding Rs.2.50 crores as mentioning above). It is correct that M/s Naman Communication did not pay a sum of Rs.1.25 crores to Sahara Samay in the month of June 2008 but Sahara Samay adjusted our security amount of Rs.1.25 crores in the month of June 2008 against the monthly payment as Pankaj Films failed to make payment. It is correct that in the month of July 2008 monthly payment of Rs.1.25 crores was not paid but Partner of M/s Naman Communication i.e. Prabhatam Advertising Pvt. Ltd. has made Rs.1 crore against the monthly payment to Sahara Samay. It is correct that M/s Naman Communication did not pay Rs.1.25 crores to Sahara Samay in the month of July 2008 and the same is the answer regarding monthly payment which was to be given by M/s Naman Communication to M/s Sahara Samay. (Vol. As Pankaj Films have not paid the committed amount as per agreement).
Q. I put it to you that it is mentioned at Para-7 of the agreement between Sahara Samay and M/s Naman Communication that M/s Naman Communication shall pay Security Deposit by way of DD to Sahara Samay which amount shall be equivalent to ONE months Consideration i.e. Rs. 1.25 crores. In Addition, M/s Naman Communication shall also provide a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 2.50 crores equivalent to the consideration of two months. Subsequently, M/s Naman Communication shall ensure to pay to Sahara Rs.1.25 crores every month before the end of succeeding month, irrespective of any profit or loss to M/s Naman Communication. In an unlikely event of M/s Naman Communication's failure to pay in time, Sahara Samay reserves the right to invoke Bank Guarantee for appropriation of dues and terminate the MoU without liability. What do you have to say ?
Ans. It is correct that above mentioned clause exists in the agreement dated 27.02.2008.
The Prabhatam Advertising Pvt. Ltd. is doing business of advertising in the Print Media and M/s Naman Communication is doing the business in TV Channels. The instruction to issue legal demand notice U/s 138 NI Act was given in my presence. Sh. Rakesh Sharma, CEO of the Group Companies and Firms has given instructions to issue legal demand notice. I do not remember whether Sh. Rakesh Sharma, CEO, Group Companies and Firms including M/s Naman Communication was authorized to initiate any legal proceeding including instructions to issue legal notice against any person or not. I do not know whether any Board Resolution exists regarding authorization of Sh. Rakesh Sharma to initiate any legal proceeding including instructions to issue legal notice against any person or not.
Cross-examination further deferred at request of ld. counsel for the accused as he is feeling unwell today.
RO & AC
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
11.10.2012
M/s Naman Communications Vs. Priti Yadav
CC No.2765/10
11.10.2012
Statement of Mr. Parmod Varma, AR of the Complainant (recalled for further cross- examination on an application U/s 145(2) NI Act).
XXXXX by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
On S.A. The MoU dated 27.02.2008 between Sahara Samay and M/s Naman Communication was not executed in my presence. M/s Naman Communication has given a Demand Draft of Rs.1.25 crores against the aforesaid MoU dated 27.02.2008 to Sahara Samay. M/s Naman Communication also paid bank guarantee of Rs.2.50 crores to Sahara Samay. The Demand Draft of Rs.21 lacs was paid on 27.02.2008 and Rs.1.04 crores regarding above said MoU was given on 10.03.2008. I am filing the Statement of Account pertaining to this payment which is Mark- A. Sahara Samay did not invoke the bank guarantee given to the Sahara Samay. It is correct that as per M/s Naman Communication has to pay a sum of Rs.1.25 crores per month for two years to Sahara Samay, the period mentioned in MoU dated 27.02.2008. M/s Naman Communication paid total amount of Rs.2.50 crores including the security of Rs.1.25 crores which was adjusted against the expenses. Again said it was payment of next month. It is correct that M/s Naman Communication did not pay any other amount to the Sahara Samay except the amount of Rs.2.50 crores as mentioned above. (Vol. The partner of M/s Naman Communication i.e. Prabhatam Advertising Pvt. Ltd. has made a payment of Rs.1 crore including TDS to Sahara Samay excluding Rs.2.50 crores as mentioning above). It is correct that M/s Naman Communication did not pay a sum of Rs.1.25 crores to Sahara Samay in the month of June 2008 but Sahara Samay adjusted our security amount of Rs.1.25 crores in the month of June 2008 against the monthly payment as Pankaj Films failed to make payment. It is correct that in the month of July 2008 monthly payment of Rs.1.25 crores was not paid but Partner of M/s Naman Communication i.e. Prabhatam Advertising Pvt. Ltd. has made Rs.1 crore against the monthly payment to Sahara Samay. It is correct that M/s Naman Communication did not pay Rs.1.25 crores to Sahara Samay in the month of July 2008 and the same is the answer regarding monthly payment which was to be given by M/s Naman Communication to M/s Sahara Samay. (Vol. As Pankaj Films have not paid the committed amount as per agreement).
Q. I put it to you that it is mentioned at Para-7 of the agreement between Sahara Samay and M/s Naman Communication that M/s Naman Communication shall pay Security Deposit by way of DD to Sahara Samay which amount shall be equivalent to ONE months Consideration i.e. Rs. 1.25 crores. In Addition, M/s Naman Communication shall also provide a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 2.50 crores equivalent to the consideration of two months. Subsequently, M/s Naman Communication shall ensure to pay to Sahara Rs.1.25 crores every month before the end of succeeding month, irrespective of any profit or loss to M/s Naman Communication. In an unlikely event of M/s Naman Communication's failure to pay in time, Sahara Samay reserves the right to invoke Bank Guarantee for appropriation of dues and terminate the MoU without liability. What do you have to say ?
Ans. It is correct that above mentioned clause exists in the agreement dated 27.02.2008.
The Prabhatam Advertising Pvt. Ltd. is doing business of advertising in the Print Media and M/s Naman Communication is doing the business in TV Channels. The instruction to issue legal demand notice U/s 138 NI Act was given in my presence. Sh. Rakesh Sharma, CEO of the Group Companies and Firms has given instructions to issue legal demand notice. I do not remember whether Sh. Rakesh Sharma, CEO, Group Companies and Firms including M/s Naman Communication was authorized to initiate any legal proceeding including instructions to issue legal notice against any person or not. I do not know whether any Board Resolution exists regarding authorization of Sh. Rakesh Sharma to initiate any legal proceeding including instructions to issue legal notice against any person or not.
Cross-examination further deferred at request of ld. counsel for the accused as he is feeling unwell today.
RO & AC
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
11.10.2012
Sumer Chand Jain Vs. Rajan Taneja
CC No.887/10
11.10.2012
Statement of Mr. Rajan Taneja, Accused, aged about 49 years, S/o R.R. Taneja, R/o 171, Gujrawala Town, Part-II, Delhi-110009.
On S.A. I am doing the business of Garment exports under the name and style of M/s Rajan Exports from R-238, Gali No.10, First Floor, Ramesh Park, Delhi-110052. I had business dealing with complainant Sh. Sumer Chand Jain from the year 2005 to 2007. I used to purchase dull mosh crepe from the complainant. I used to had business dealings through telephone or by personal visit to the office of the complainant and complainant also used to visit my office as well.
Examination in chief deferred for after lunch.
RO & AC
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
11.10.2012
Sumer Chand Jain Vs. Rajan Taneja
CC No.887/10
11.10.2012
Statement of Mr. Rajan Taneja, Accused, aged about 49 years, S/o R.R. Taneja, R/o 171, Gujrawala Town, Part-II, Delhi-110009 (recalled for further Examination in Chief after lunch).
On S.A. The complainant used to supply the material from M/s Gaurav Enterprises and M/s Maa Shakti Synthetics. In the year 2005 and 2006 the complainant issued Bill No.142 and 171 to the accused. The cheques in question were issued against the said bills. There was a problem of material in these bills. I had informed Mr. Sumer Chand Jain about it and he assured me that he would supply fresh material to me from M/s Maa Shakti Synthetics. In between I had also extended the dates of the cheques already issued. In between I had already made about payment of Rs.8-10 lacs against the material supplied. There was also some defect in the material supplied by M/s Maa Shakti Synthetics to me. I had also informed Sumer Chand Jain about the same defect and he had assured me to supply the goods to the buyers and after that I would make settlement with you with respect to the cheques issued by me in question and till then the same were not presented in the bank. The shipment was rejected by the buyer after inspection of the material supplied during mid February 2007. Then I called up the complainant to my place and after inspecting the garments Sumer Chand Jain asked me to get it tested from the private lab. I got the inspection done of the material from M/s Santra in Surat in the year 2007. On 03.03.2007 I had issued stop payment instructions in respect of cheques issued to M/s Maa Shakti Synthetics and also informed the complainant not to present the cheques issued to M/s Gaurav Enterprises till the matter is not settled between us. On receiving the report of material after inspection from M/s Santra on 12.03.2007, the complainant deliberately presented the cheques in question with its banker. With respect to this transaction, I had filed a case in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 27.04.2007 against M/s Gaurav Enterprises and M/s Maa Shakti Synthetics. I am filing the certified copy of memo of parties in CS (OS) No.833 of 2007 alongwith the list of documents and the documents filed therein which is Exh.DW1/A (colly). The present complaint case has been filed by the complainant only after my filing the above mentioned case in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It is because of this act of complainant I have suffered a lot of financial good will in the market.
XXXXX by Mr. J.K. Singhal, Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
I had filed the suit in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against the complainant after I had already received a legal demand notice U/s 138 NI Act before filing the present complaint case by the complainant. Aforesaid suit in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was filed by me even after sending the reply dated 23.04.2007 to the legal demand notice. (Vol. I had filed the suit in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 27.04.2007). I have written all the details mentioned in my examination in chief in my reply dated 23.04.2007 sent to the complainant. It is wrong to suggest that I have not written the details mentioned in my examination in chief in my reply dated 23.04.2007. I have not placed on record any document which could show any relationship of the complainant Sh. Sumer Chand Jain with M/s Maa Shakti Synthetics. It is wrong to suggest that the complainant never informed me that he had any relation with M/s Maa Shakti Synthetics. It is correct that I have not filed the copies of plaint, written statement and evidence of the suit filed by me against the complainant in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It is wrong to suggest that there was no defect in the material and that is why I have not filed the aforesaid pleadings and evidence of the suit pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It is wrong to suggest that I have never asked Sh. Sumer Chand Jain not to deposit the cheques in question in his bank at any time. I do not remember the names of the persons who were employed with me in the year 2005 and 2006. (Vol. I had 150 employees but I do not remember their names). The signature appearing on the bill Exh.CW1/17 at Point A is not of any of my employees and I never received this bill. I do not remember if I had any employee by the name of Ms. Shruti. It is wrong to suggest that I had not informed the complainant to delay the deposit of cheques in question with his banker because I had financial hardship. It is further wrong to suggest that I have revalidated the cheques before the same were about to expire. It is wrong to suggest that there was no defect in the material supplied by the complainant to me. It is wrong to suggest that I had not made payment of Rs.8-10 lacs against the material supplied. It is wrong to suggest that the complainant had not assured me to supply the goods to the buyers. It is wrong to suggest that the shipment was not rejected by the buyer. I do not remember whether I have mentioned in my reply dated 23.04.2007 to the legal demand notice about the rejection of the shipment in February 2007. It is wrong to suggest that Sh. Sumer Chand Jain did not ask me to get the material tested from any lab or I got the inspection of the material supplied by Sh. Sumer Chand Jain from M/s Santra at any time. I have not issued any stop payment instructions in respect of the cheques in question. I do not know whether any rejoinder to my reply dated 23.04.2007 to the legal demand notice was received by me but I do not know if my counsel received it. It is correct that the report of M/s Santra which is part of this documents submitted by me today as Exh.DW1/A (colly) does not bear my name, the name of my business concern M/s Rajan Exports, the name of Sh. Sumer Chand Jain or M/s Gaurav Enterprises. It is wrong to suggest that the said report does not bear aforesaid names because it does not relate to the material supplied by the complainant to me. It is wrong to suggest that the purchase orders purported to be issued in the name of Rajan 5036 do not relate to the complainant or his business concern nor the same has been placed by M/s Saab Textiles Ltd. It is wrong to suggest that Bill No.201, 206, 217, 218, 228, packing slips of M/s Maa Shakti Synthetics and related transport receipts also have no relations with Sh. Sumer Chand Jain or his business concern. It is wrong to suggest that Bill No.093 (issued by D.K. International) and 1952 (issued by D.N. Kumar & Sons) also have no concern with Sumer Chand Jain or with the material supplied by him to me. It is further wrong to suggest that the letter of M/s Saab Textiles Ltd. addressed to Mr. Rajan C/o Rajan Trading also does not pertain to the material supplied by the complainant to me. It is wrong to suggest that the suit CS (OS) No.833 of 2007 file by me inter alia against the complainant is counter blast to the legal demand notice issued by the complainant to me. The material supplied by the complainant was accepted by me. It is wrong to suggest that a sum of Rs.3,77,003/- is due and payable by me to the complainant apart from huge amount as interest. It is wrong to suggest that the defect, if any, in the material would have been detected if the same was soaked in the water. The defect could be detected after soaking in chemical but I do not know the name of that chemical. (Vol. It is better known to the dyer). It is wrong to suggest that the defect could have been detected by soaking the fabric in water because no chemical is used in the dying of the same, it being a viscos fabrics. It is wrong to suggest that I have committed offence U/s 138 of NI Act. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
RO & AC
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
11.10.2012
Sumer Chand Jain Vs. Rajan Taneja
CC No.887/10
11.10.2012
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused with counsel.
Accused examined and discharged.
Ld. counsel for the accused wants to summon the concerned record from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to show the date of filing of the certified copies brought by the accused.
However, ld. counsel for the complainant submits that there is no such requirement as the initial date of this suit is itself appearing on the certified copies filed by the accused as appearing from the Memo of parties.
Ld. counsel for the accused submits that no witness is required for defence evidence. DE stands closed.
List for final arguments on 20.10.2012 at 12 O'clock.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 11.10.2012