Delhi District Court
M/S Goel Sales Corporation vs . M/S Priyanka Electrical Engineers on 5 March, 2013
Deepak Vasudeva (Complainant). CC No.7056/12, 7057/12 & 7058/12 05.03.2013
Present: Ld. counsel for complainant.
Accused Dharamvir in person.
These are three matters of the Complainant.
Accused Dharamvir is an accused only in CC No.7058/12. He submits that in other two cases his real brothers are accused. He has filed respective exemption applications on their behalf on the ground of illness. Both the applications are worded in identical terms. I am unable to accept the reasons of sickness given on behalf of both the brothers Ramesh Chand and Suresh Kumar. More so when no details have been provided and no medical document has been attached. However, instead of taking any coercive measure I am inclined to give one opportunity to the respective accused persons in their respective case to put appearance subject to a cost of Rs.2,000/- each to be deposited with the Mediation Center, Tis Hazari, Delhi within 10 days.
Accused Dharamvir is admitted on bail in his case subject to furnishing of bail bond and surety bond to the tune of Rs.5,000/-. He, however, seeks time to furnish surety bond.
At his request, one opportunity is given to him to furnish his surety and till the next date his personal bond is accepted.
List on 21.05.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 05.03.2013 R M/s Goel Sales Corporation Vs. M/s Priyanka Electrical Engineers CC No.4297/10 05.03.2013 Statement of Ms. Sushma Goel, aged about 53 years, W/o Surender Kumar Goel, R/o 266, Sri Ram Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032, (recalled for cross-examination on an application U/s 145(2) NI Act as allowed by Ld. Revisional Court). XXXXX by Mr. Ramesh Yadav, Ld. Counsel for the accused. On S.A. I know English language. I can read, write and understand English language. I am also aware about the contents written in my affidavit which bears my name and signature. I signed the said affidavit at my home. I do not know where the said affidavit was attested and by whom. It is wrong to suggest that I have not signed the same affidavit and the contents are not in my knowledge. I am the Proprietor of M/s Goel Sales Corporation. I do not know whether the said firm is registered or not. I have filed the Sales Tax Returns of my firm several times through my husband. I do not know whether my Income Tax Return was ever filed or not. I have supplied pipe and pipe fittings material to the accused but do not know how much. I do not know where the said material i.e. pipe and pipe fittings were supplied. It is wrong to suggest that I have not supplied the material to the accused. I do not know what transport was used for supplying the said material to the accused. It is correct that as per Clause-2 (conditions) mentioned in Invoices "our responsibility cases when the goods are delivered to the party are the carrier." I do not know whether the said conditions were fulfilled or not. (Vol. I do not know about the fulfillment of conditions since I have been suffering from ailments for 3-4 years and I also do not know about the business dealings of my firm). (Vol. I am having only special knowledge about this present case). It is wrong to suggest that due to personal enmity I have filed the present complaint case against the accused. I do not know the name of the advocate through whom I have sent the legal notice to the accused. I do not know about the contents of the legal notice. I do not know whether I have received any reply of the legal notice or not.
Cross-examination deferred at request of ld. counsels from both the sides.
RO & AC
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
05.03.2013 R
M.K. Saxena Vs. Abhishek Sinha
CC No.5908/11
05.03.2013
Statement of Complainant Mr. M.K. Saxena, (recalled for further cross- examination on an application U/s 145(2) NI Act). XXXXX by Mr. A.K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the accused. On S.A. The Partnership Deed as per my knowledge which is Exh.CW1/17 was made in only one copy. I do not remember the shares of the partners in the Partnership firm but the same is mentioned in the document. The name of the Partnership firm was M/s Sunshine Securities Pvt. Ltd. The Partnership Deed was prepared by the accused and it was given by him to me. It is wrong to suggest that the above said Partnership Deed is a forged Partnership Deed prepared by me. It is further wrong to suggest that no such Partnership Deed was ever prepared by the accused. It is wrong to say that neither the accused nor his wife had any share in the Partnership firm. The Complainant is contradicted with the original Partnership Deed filed by the Complainant where on Page No.2 it is specifically stated from Point-A to A1 that the share of Suresh Kumar Singh was 50% and the share of M.K. Saxena was also 50%. (Vol. The wife of the accused was a Sleeping Partner and the share of Surat Singh was 50% in the Partnership firm). The Partnership Deed bears the signature of the accused and his wife at Point-A on Page-1 and Point-B on Page-2. It is wrong to suggest that both the signatures of the accused and his wife on Page-1 as well as Page-2 at Point-A and B respectively of Partnership Deed has been forged by me. I admit the Notice dated 02.03.2009 which is Mark-D1 was sent on my instructions by my counsel to the accused and his employer. I do not remember the notice dated 28.10.2009 which is Mark-D2 was sent on my behalf of or not. I do not remember whether I have made the complaint dated 15.11.2009 which is Mark-D3 to the police or not. I admit that I had given the complaint which is Mark-D4 to the Police Commissioner. The loan agreement was prepared by the accused. It is wrong to suggest that I have prepared a forged loan agreement by forging the signatures of the accused. It is further wrong to suggest that no loan agreement was ever executed by the accused. It is further wrong to suggest that not even a single penny was taken as loan by the accused from me. It is correct that I have filed a complaint case U/s 138 Negotiable Act.
Cross-examination deferred at 01.25 p.m. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 05.03.2013 R M.K. Saxena Vs. Abhishek Sinha CC No.5908/11 05.03.2013 Statement of Complainant Mr. M.K. Saxena, (recalled for further cross- examination on an application U/s 145(2) NI Act after lunch time). XXXXX by Mr. A.K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the accused. On S.A. It is correct that I have filed a separate complaint case U/s 138 NI Act which is pending in the court of Ms. Charu Aggarwal, Ld. MM. The Complainant admits the certified copy of the summons issued by the Ld. Predecessor Sh. Viplav Dabas which is Exh.CW1/D1. The copy of the criminal complaint filed by the Complainant which is admitted by the Complainant and is Exh.CW1/D2 (colly) (running into four pages). The certified copy of the legal notice on the basis of which the aforesaid complaint case was filed is Exh.CW1/D3 (colly) (running into two pages). I do not know anything about IQ26 and IQ27. The Notice dated 28.10.2009 addressed to Paras Holdings, Ravinder Aggarwal, Abhishek Sinha and Sudhanshu Dutt has not been sent on my behalf. It is correct that Narain & Co. mentioned as his client by Amresh Mathur, Advocate in Notice dated 28.10.2009 is my firm/company.
Cross-examination deferred.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 05.03.2013 R M/s Goel Sales Corporation Vs. M/s Priyanka Electrical Engineers CC No.4297/10 05.03.2013 Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
Ld. counsel for the accused has filed his medical paper.
Matter is listed for cross-examination of the Complainant.
Ld. counsel for the accused submits that there must be post-summoning evidence of the Complainant or the pre-summoning affidavit should be adopted by the Complainant.
I have considered the of ld. counsel for the accused and I am of the opinion that neither the Cr.P.C. nor NI Act provide for any adoption of pre-summoning evidence. So far as post notice evidence is concerned, I am of the view that Section-145(1) NI Act contemplates giving of evidence by way of affidavit which can be read in evidence also in trial. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Gurpreet Singh Vs. M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. & decided on 02 August, 2010 has already deprecated the practice of the Trial Courts to place the matter for post-summoning evidence and has directed that the evidence filed at pre-summoning stage is good even for post-summoning stage.
The Complainant has been cross-examined in part and cross-examination deferred at request of both the ld. counsels.
List on 14.05.2013 for further cross-examination.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
05.03.2013 R
M.K. Saxena Vs. Abhishek Sinha
CC No.5908/11
05.03.2013
Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
Complainant cross-examined in part in pre-lunch session and post-lunch session. Further cross-examination deferred.
Ld. counsel for the accused submits that he wants to move appropriate application before Ld. CMM for clubbing of two case pending in two different courts.
List for further cross-examination on 17.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 05.03.2013 R Dhiraj Sharma Vs. Jyoti Prasad Kushwaha CC No.7489/13 05.03.2013 File received by way of transfer. It be checked and registered.
Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
Let in terms of last order, Court Notice be issued to the Convict for 07.05.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 05.03.2013 R Harjeet Singh Kalra Vs. M/s Gurdayal Shyam Lal Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
CC No.7490/1305.03.2013 File received by way of transfer. It be checked and registered.
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Counsel for the accused.
An exemption application has filed on behalf of the accused subject to furnishing of Medical Certificate.
Accused is exempted for today.
Ld. counsel for the Complainant wants to file reply of the pending application of the accused.
Adjourned for reply, if any, and arguments on 14.05.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 05.03.2013 R Havells India Ltd. Vs. M/s Bhandari & Sons & Ors.
CC No.7491/1305.03.2013 File received by way of transfer. It be checked and registered.
Present: None for the parties.
A clerk of the ld. counsel of the accused appeared and submits that father of the accused has expired and, therefore, accused is unable to appear.
One opportunity for the accused to appear.
A Notice be also issued to the Complainant.
List on 20.05.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
05.03.2013 R
M.L. Rao Vs. Shahkar Ahmed
CC No.7492/13, 7493/13 & 7494/13
05.03.2013
File received by way of transfer. It be checked and registered.
Present: None.
These are three connected matters.
A Notice be issued to both the sides.
List on 29.05.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
05.03.2013 R
M/s Allied Silk Co. Vs. M/s Patloon Apparels (P) Ltd. & Ors.
CC No.7495/13, 7496/13, 7497/13, 7498/13, 7499/13, 7500/13, 7501/13, 7502/13, 7503/13, 7504/13, 7505/13 05.03.2013 File received by way of transfer. It be checked and registered.
Present: AR of the Complainant with counsel.
Proxy counsel for the accused.
These are 11 connected matters.
Ld. Proxy counsel seeks more time so accused can pay the amount to the Complainant.
Ld. counsel for the Complainant submits that the payment was to be made by the accused in the year 2012 itself. He, however, submits that if the accused is ready and willing to make the payment, Complainant is inclined to give some more time.
One more opportunity is given to the parties to complete the settlement. They shall be at liberty to prepare a Compromise Deed. This opportunity shall be subject to a cost of Rs.2,000/- in each case. Half of the cost shall be paid by the accused to the Complainant and remaining shall be deposited with the Mediation Center, Tis Hazari, Delhi within 20 days. Accused is also directed to appear on the next date.
List on 06.05.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 05.03.2013 R M/s Durga Motor & General Finance Co. Vs. Vidhi Chand Sharma CC No.7506/13 05.03.2013 File received by way of transfer. It be checked and registered.
Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
Accused in person.
Ld. counsel for the Complainant is seeking passover for want of complainant.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 05.03.2013 R At 03.56 p.m. Present: AR of the Complainant with counsel.
Accused in person.
Accused has paid Rs.5,000/- to the AR of the Complainant.
Parties submit that now Rs.15,000/- is remaining.
Last opportunity for the accused to pay the remaining amount within one month.
List on 06.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 05.03.2013 R M/s G.T.C. Info Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Piyush Communication & Anr.
CC No.7507/1305.03.2013 File received by way of transfer. It be checked and registered.
Present: Proxy Counsel for the Complainant.
Accused with counsel.
Accused has filed and application U/s 145(2) NI Act and supplied a copy to the proxy counsel for the complainant who submits that complainant will file a reply to this application.
Accused has also filed an application U/s 340 Cr.P.C., however, ld. counsel for the accused submits that he will press the application at appropriate time if necessary.
Let this application be instituted separately by the office.
List on 02.05.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 05.03.2013 R M/s Lalita Overseas Vs. M/s White Cube Retails Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
CC No.7508/1305.03.2013 File received by way of transfer. It be checked and registered.
Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
Let Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. in terms of order dated 31.08.2012 be issued.
List on 06.06.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 05.03.2013 R M/s Masauri Service Station Vs. Dharam Pal CC No.7509/13 05.03.2013 File received by way of transfer. It be checked and registered.
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused in person.
Accused has paid Rs.1,000/- as cost as imposed by the Ld. Revisional Court.
Clerk of the ld. counsel for the accused is present and submits that ld. counsel has undergone an operation and, therefore, is unable to appear today.
The matter is at the stage of final arguments.
List on 26.03.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 05.03.2013 R M/s Vardaan Chits Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Prem Lata CC No.7510/13 05.03.2013 File received by way of transfer. It be checked and registered.
Present: Ar of the Complainant with proxy counsel.
Last order be complied with for 10.07.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
05.03.2013 R
Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. Tarun
CC No.7511/13
05.03.2013
File received by way of transfer. It be checked and registered.
Present: None for the Complainant.
Accused with counsel.
Notice issued the Complainant and ld. counsel for the Complainant from the Ld. Predecessor court are served.
No one is present on behalf of the Complainant.
I, however, consider that due to transfer of cases, a fresh Notice be issued to the Complainant and the ld. counsel.
List on 14.05.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 05.03.2013 R CC No.7512/13 05.03.2013 File received by way of transfer. It be checked and registered.
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused absent.
Let order dated 14.07.2012 be complied with.
List on 25.06.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 05.03.2013 R The Plywood Shoppe VS. Mrs. Rita Chaudha CC No.7513/13 05.03.2013 File received by way of transfer. It be checked and registered.
Present: None.
Let Process Server be called in terms of order 29.06.2012.
List on 06.06.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 05.03.2013 R M/s Kanak Assurance Consultants Ltd. Vs. Rakesh Kumar Saini CC No.7523/13 & 7524/13 05.03.2013 Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
Present: AR of the Complainant with counsel.
These are two connected matters.
Adjourned the matter to 19.03.2013 for consideration.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 05.03.2013 R M/s Shri Ganesh Steel Co. Vs. M/s Superior Industries CC No.7525/13 05.03.2013 Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
Present: AR of the Complainant with counsel.
At request, adjourned the matter to 23.03.2013 for consideration.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 05.03.2013 R M/s Shri Ganesh Steel Co. Vs. M/s Accurate Filter Components CC No.7526/13 05.03.2013 Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
Present: AR of the Complainant with counsel.
At request, adjourned the matter to 23.03.2013 for consideration.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 05.03.2013 R M/s Shri Ganesh Steel Co. Vs. M/s Accurate Filter Components CC No.7527/13 05.03.2013 Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
Present: AR of the Complainant with counsel.
At request, adjourned the matter to 23.03.2013 for consideration.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
05.03.2013 R
Sandeep Bansal Vs. Jitender Kumar
CC No.7529/13
05.03.2013
Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
Present: Complainant with counsel.
At request, adjourned the matter to 26.03.2013 for consideration.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
05.03.2013 R
Umesh Gupta Vs. Rajesh Kumar
CC No.7528/13
05.03.2013
Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
At request, adjourned the matter to 15.03.2013 for consideration.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
05.03.2013 R
Surender Chopra Vs. Vindul Prakash
CC No.7194/13
05.03.2013
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 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 complainant side, I am satisfied that a case U/s 138 NI Act has been made out against the accused. Let the accused be summoned through all available modes for 12.07.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 05.03.2013 R S.R. Bearing Corporation Vs. M/s M.S. Engineering Works & Ors.
CC No.7281/1305.03.2013 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 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 complainant side, 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 11.07.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 05.03.2013 R DS Milk Product Ltd. Vs. M/s Asit Baran Saha CC No.7280/13 05.03.2013 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 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 complainant side, I am satisfied that a case U/s 138 NI Act has been made out against the accused. Let the accused be summoned through all available modes for 10.07.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 05.03.2013 R