Delhi District Court
Praveen Jain vs . Neeraj Bansal on 25 April, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MR. VAIBHAV CHAURASIA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 04 : NORTH WEST
DISTRICT ROHINI COURTS: NEW DELHI
Praveen Jain Vs. Neeraj Bansal
PS Keshav Puram
U/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
Date of Institution : 23.12.2014
Date of Judgment : 25.04.2023
JUDGMENT
(1) Serial number of the case : 16573/2016 (2) Name of the complainant : Praveen Jain S/o Late Sh. Shobha Ram Jain R/o.: 1818/137, Shanti Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi.
(3) Name of the accused : Neeraj Bansal
S/o D.N. Bansal,
R/o: D-56, Prashant Vihar,
Delhi.
(4) Offence complained of/ : U/S 138 N.I. Act, 1881
(5) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
(6) Final Order : Conviction
(7) Reserved for judgment on : 25.04.2023 BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. In brief, it is the case of the complainant that Complainant and accused our friends and know each other;
Case No. 16573/2016 Praveen Jain Vs. Neeraj Bansal Page No. 1 of 21that the accused has taken the friendly loan of the Rs. 7,50,000; that to repay the same they accuse of each of the cheque bearing no. 665771 dated 20.05.2013 for the amount of ₹ 7,50,000 in Indian overseas Bank, Prashant Vihar which was presented to the banker of the complaint however it was returned dishonoured with remark "funds insufficient" via return memo dated 30.07.2013 which was communicated to the complainant on 31.07.2013 and thereupon legal notice dated 29.08.2013 was served upon the accused and despite the legal notice the accused did not make the payment of the cheque. Hence, the present complaint was filed by the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter "the Act").
2. The complainant led pre-summoning evidence by way of affidavit (Ex CW1/A) and relied upon documents i.e., :
cheque bearing no. 665771 dated 20.05.2013 for Rs. 7,50,000/- drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Prashant Vihar, New Delhi (Ex.CW1/1); the bank return memo dated 30.07.2013 (Ex CW1/2); legal notice dated 29.08.2013 (Ex CW1/3), postal receipt (Ex CW1/4), tracking report (Ex.CW1/5) and Bank Account statement (Ex.CW1/6) which were duly considered by the Ld Predecessor and the accused was summoned vide order dated 17.01.2015 for offence u/s. 138 NI Act.Case No. 16573/2016 Praveen Jain Vs. Neeraj Bansal Page No. 2 of 21
3. After the accused entered appearance, accused was admitted to bail and notice was framed against accused on 20.09.2016 by the Ld Predecessor wherein the accused stated the defence that 'The cheque in question only be the signature and rest of the content of the cheque were not filled by him. Complainant was an LIC agent and their family friend. Complainant and his family members are known to him and his family members for the last 35 years. He handed over a blank check to the complainant in good faith on 02.03.2007 for the revival of LIC policy bearing no. 12061255 as the amount of interest and penalty was unascertained. The above set policy was lapsed in February 2006 for non-payment and complainant instead of reviving the police misuse the cheque and presented the same without any intimation and knowledge. He did not owe any liability towards the complainant and complainant have filed false case against him.
4. After the application of the accused under Section 145 (2) NI Act was allowed by the Ld Predecessor vide order dated 20.09.2016, the accused was permitted to cross- examine the complainant.
5. During the evidence, the complainant was duly cross examined by the Counsel for accused in which complainant stated that He know the accused as earlier he was tenant of father of accused from several years back. He admitted that there were cordial relations between him Case No. 16573/2016 Praveen Jain Vs. Neeraj Bansal Page No. 3 of 21 and accused as the father of accused was very good person. He had given the loan amount to the accused in cash. He file ITR. He have shown the loan amount in his ITR of the relevant year. He can produce the said ITR. He admitted that he was working as LIC Agent up to 2003-2004. It was also correct that accused has taken a policy through him many years back. He cannot tell his agency code as he did not remember the same. He did not know whether the policy of accused was lapsed. He was doing the business of Rakhies by the name and style of Praveen Rakhi Bhandar. his source of income was only from that business. He was doing that business approximately from 25-30 years. He have not much so sale from that business so he have no need to maintain the transaction of his said business but he filed ITR of that business. He have no knowledge that he maintain any books of account, balance sheet, profit and loss statement regarding that business. He filed his ITR every year. He was filing his ITRs for the last about 15 years. The accused had taken Rs.7.50,000/- from him in December 2012. He did not remember the exact date. He have mentioned the date, month and year of his loan in his complaint. At that stage, witness was shown his complaint and after seeing the same, the witness submits that it was not written in the complaint. No document was executed regarding the proof of borrowing. He know the accused's father from his tender age so he know the accused for the last 25-30 years. He have no relation with the accused. No person well known to him and accused gave any assurance regarding return of the said amount.
Case No. 16573/2016 Praveen Jain Vs. Neeraj Bansal Page No. 4 of 21No one stood surety for the accused for return of his amount. He believed that the accused would return his amount (Jante The). He denied that no such amount was ever borrowed by the accused from him or that he was deposing falsely in respect of the same. Witness was questioned 'I put it to you that the accused had taken a LIC policy no. 122061255 for a sum of Rs.30,000/- through you copy of which is now shown to you. What did you have to say? To which he answered 'It is correct.' The copy of policy is now Ex.CW-1/D1. It was correct that the said policy was elapsed. Again said, he did not know .He denied that the cheque in question was given to him after signing on it by the accused in 2005 for the renewal of the policy. The accused had handed over the cheque in question to him at his home in the inner room in December 2012. The said fact was not written in his complaint. He denied that the cheque in question was blank or that he filled it myself. The writing on the cheque in question including the name, date and amount was not mine. He denied that he had got the cheque in question filled from someone else or that he had misused the cheque in question unlawfully and illegally which was in his custody in good faith. He denied that neither he renewed policy nor he returned the cheque in question which was given to him by the accused in good faith in blank for renewal of policy or that he had assured the accused that he will fill the amount and date after confirming the amount from LIC. He denied that he have no legal right nor the accused has any legal liability regarding the said cheque in question or Case No. 16573/2016 Praveen Jain Vs. Neeraj Bansal Page No. 5 of 21 that the same was totally fake and false. he cannot say whether the accused did any work or not.
6. The statement of accused was thereafter recorded under Sec 313 CrPC on 31.01.2017 wherein the entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused and accused reiterated the defence taken already. Accused stated that 'I had taken a policy from the complainant in 2004. I do not know after how much time, the complainant came to me and told me that my policy was about to lapse and further told me that he could get the same renewed. In good faith, I gave the cheque in question to the complainant. He had told me that he will fill the name, the policy number as well as the amount after calculating the interest. Thereafter, as I was not monitoring the policy, I lost track. I came to know about this case after I received Notice / summons from the court. I do not have any legal liability in respect of the cheque in question.
7. The accused however chose lead evidence qua defence.
8. DW-1: Sh. Neeraj Bansal S/o Sh. D.N. Bansal, R/o: D-
56, Prashant Vihar deposed that the complainant was his family friend for about 30-35 years. Complainant was working as LIC Agent. In the year 2004, the complainant came to him and requested him to take LIC policy as complainant was not able to meet his target. Despite his Case No. 16573/2016 Praveen Jain Vs. Neeraj Bansal Page No. 6 of 21 reluctance, complainant repeatedly requested him and thereafter, he agreed to take a small LIC Policy. his LIC Policy number was 122061255 dated 10.02.2004 for a assured sum of Rs. 30,000/- with installments of ten years having premium of Rs. 1524/- per annum, copy of the same is now Ex.DW1/1 (OSR) Premium Receipt dated 12.02.2004 is Ex.DW1/2 (OSR), Premium Receipt dated 02.03.2005 is Ex.DW1/2A (OSR), Letter from LIC for renewal of policy with due date of premium on 10.02.2005 is Ex.DW1/2B (OSR), Outer page of Cheque Book containing the cheque number series is Ex.DW1/3 (OSR), Counter foil is Ex.DW1/4 (OSR). Thereafter, he have forgotten the above policy and he did not bother to pay the premium two subsequent premiums for the year 2005 and 2006. In the year 2007, Sh. Praveen Jain, complainant approached him and reminded him of the policy telling him that the policy has been lapsed or about to lapse, if he did not clear all the dues right now. Otherwise, already paid amount will be forfeited by the LIC and also the complainant will not get any sales credits / commissions for the same. The complainant forced him to issue a cheque for the same. He agreed to clear the balances in the dues. The complainant told him that the exact amount of the payment can be calculated only after knowing the exact interest and penalty till date. So the amount was left blank. Neither him nor the complainant was having the exact policy details / number at that time, and complainant promised to fill the exact particulars of the payee with policy number after checking his record. So the payee Case No. 16573/2016 Praveen Jain Vs. Neeraj Bansal Page No. 7 of 21 column left blank. As the complainant was an old and trusted family friend, so he did not bother much and handed him over a blank signed cheque. Without having any doubt in his mind about the honesty of the complainant. He duly made a referral entry in the counter foil of his cheque book about the cheque number and the purpose alongwith the date on which it was given to the complainant on 02.03.2007. As he was not much interested in the policy, he again did not bother if any payment has been made to clear the dues or not. He came to know about the misuse and the dishonour of the above cheque when he received summons from the Court. Witness was cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for the complainant wherein he deposed he was in possession of Ex.DW1/1 since the starting of the policy in the year 2004 and when LIC sent to him. He was in possession of the receipts and letter sent by LIC since 2004 when they were sent to him. He was in possession of Ex.DW1/2A and Ex.DW1/2B since 2005. The Ex.DW1/4 had always remained in his possession. The dates mentioned in Ex.DW1/4 are all in his handwriting. He admitted that he had manipulated the dates in Ex.DW1/4. The witness was shown the Ex.DW1/4 and format of making number "2" at point A, B, C, D, E, F and G are shown to be in same make / write up whereas at point H, the numeral "2" was of different make and write up. He admitted that at point A, B, C, D, E, F and G, the numeral "2" was of same make / write up and numeral "2" at point H was of different write up. Vol. he write numeral "2" of two different write up.
Case No. 16573/2016 Praveen Jain Vs. Neeraj Bansal Page No. 8 of 21The Ex.DW1/3 and Ex.DW1/4 was taken on record in original for the best appreciation of evidence. He admitted that the entries made at row no. 2 and column no. 3 to row no. 9 Column No. 3 of Ex.DW1/4 are written by a same pen. He admitted that entry at row no. 11 are written by a different pen with the purpose of manipulating with the record and to give false evidence. He did not remember whether he had paid premium in 2005 to the LIC. his residential address was same since 1983 to till date. Witness is shown Ex.CW1/3. He admitted that the address mentioned in Ex.CW1/3 bears his correct address. Witness was shown Ex.CW1/5. He admitted that in the document, it was mentioned "Item delivered to Neeraj Bansal". Vol. He had never received any document as shown so. He had not filed any complaint with LIC regarding any fraud played by the complainant as alleged by him. He had not filed any complaint either to LIC or any other Government Agency regarding misuse / misappropriation of his present cheque. He did not remember when he got to know about the present case. Again said, when he received summons of the present case, he got to know about the present case. He had not filed any complaint against the present complainant even after gaining the knowledge of the present case. He did not informed to his bank that any of his cheque had been misused. He admitted that he had taken loan from the complainant. He admitted that the cheque in question was issued by him in lieu of his legal liability for repayment of loan taken from the complainant. He admitted that despite Case No. 16573/2016 Praveen Jain Vs. Neeraj Bansal Page No. 9 of 21 receipt of notice he had neither replied for the same nor he have made the payment. He admitted that he was creating false documents to avoid his legal liability in the present case. He admitted that he was taking a false and frivolous defence in the present case. He admitted that he was well aware of his policy number since 2004 and he had wrongly stated that in 2007, he was not aware about the policy number. He admitted that he had made a false statement that he had not paid premium to LIC in the year 2005. He admitted that the complainant has never informed him regarding lapse or forfeiture of his premium or policy. He had never inquired from the complainant regarding the presentation of the cheque or why premium of his policy was not deposited despite that he had handed over a cheque to the complainant for the same. He volunteered that he was not interested in inquiring the same as he never wanted LIC policy. He admitted that he was deposing falsely.
9. Final arguments advanced by Sh. Ankur Jain, Ld counsel for the complainant and by Sh. Yogesh Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the accused have been carefully considered alongwith the entire evidence on record.
10. To prove an offence under Section 138 NI Act, it is required to be proved that:
Case No. 16573/2016 Praveen Jain Vs. Neeraj Bansal Page No. 10 of 21(i) The accused issued a cheque on an account maintained by him/her with a bank for payment of money to another from out of that account;
(ii) That cheque has been issued for the discharge (either in whole or in part) of any debt or other liability;
(iii)That cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier;
(iv) That cheque has been returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to honour the cheque or it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank;
(v) The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 30 days of the receipt of information by him/her from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and
(vi) The drawer of such cheque failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice.
11. In the case at hand, the accused has not disputed that the cheque in question has been issued on an account Case No. 16573/2016 Praveen Jain Vs. Neeraj Bansal Page No. 11 of 21 maintained by accused with a bank and hence the ingredient (i) is deemed to proved as not disputed.
12. In respect of ingredient (iii) and (iv), the complainant has testified that the cheque in question ie Ex CW1/1 I.e.cheque bearing no. 665771 dated 20.05.2013 for Rs. 7,50,000/- drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Prashant Vihar, New Delhi was returned dishonoured on 30.07.2013 (Ex CW1/2). During the cross-examination of complainant, no questions were put to the complainant nor any suggestions were given to the complainant as to the cheque not having been presented to the bank within the period of its validity. Hence the ingredient (iii) ie the factum of the cheque in question having been presented during the period of its validity is deemed to be proved as not disputed.
13. Further, with the factum of dishonour of the cheque in question being not disputed by the accused and rather as having been admitted by accused in statement under Sec 313 CrPC, the ingredient (iv) is also deemed to be admitted as not disputed.
14. In respect of the legal notice, as CW1, the complainant has testified that upon dishonour of cheque in question, complainant sent notice dated 29.08.2013 (Ex CW1/3) to the accused for return of the cheque amount vide speed Case No. 16573/2016 Praveen Jain Vs. Neeraj Bansal Page No. 12 of 21 post and courier on 29.08.2013 ie within 30 days of dishonour of the cheque. The complainant also relied upon receipts (Ex CW1/4) alongwith tracking report and AD card (Ex CW1/5). The accused has however denied receipt of the notice of demand.
15. It is pertinent to note that Section 114 of Evidence Act, 1872 is applicable to communications sent by post and it enables the court to presume that in the common course of natural events, the communication would have been delivered at the address of the addressee. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act envisages that when a registered notice is posted, it is presumed to have been served unless rebuttal is given.
16. In the present case, it is not the case of the accused that the address on which the notice was sent is not accused's address, rather accused has given the same address in the court when accused's statement under Section 281 r/w 313 CrPC was being recorded. Hence the notice was sent by the complainant at accused's correct address. For reasons best known to accused, the accused has not led any evidence in rebuttal to disprove the report given by the postal official either.
17. Further, in CC Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed & Anr. (Crl. Appeal No. 767 of 2007), the Hon'ble Apex Case No. 16573/2016 Praveen Jain Vs. Neeraj Bansal Page No. 13 of 21 Court has held that " Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post, can, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of the complaint u/s. 138 of the Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of summons (by receiving a copy of complaint with the summons) and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected. A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the court along-with the copy of the complaint u/s. 138 of the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice as required u/s. 138, by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary u/s. 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act".
18. Thus, keeping in view that except mere denial of receipt of notice of demand, no evidence in rebuttal has been led by the accused as also keeping in view the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court, merely on the account of non service of legal notice dated 29.08.2013(Ex. CW-1/3) the present complaint cannot be rejected and the same is presumed to have been duly served upon the accused. Moreover accused has addmitted to the circumstances in his cross- examination.
19. In respect of ingredient (vi), it is pertinent to note that admittedly the accused has not made any payment to the Case No. 16573/2016 Praveen Jain Vs. Neeraj Bansal Page No. 14 of 21 complainant in respect of the cheque in question till date. Hence even the ingredient (vi) stands proved.
DEBT/LIABILITY
20. It is a well settled position of law that once execution of the negotiable instrument is admitted, the presumption under Section 118(a) NI Act would arise that it is supported by a consideration. However, such presumption is rebuttable and the accused can prove the non-existence of consideration by raising a probable defence. If the accused is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the complainant who will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would dis-entitle him to the grant of relief on the basis of the negotiable instrument. The burden upon the accused of proving the non-existence of the consideration can be either direct or by bringing on record the preponderance of probabilities by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. In such an event, the accused is entitled under law to rely upon all the evidence led in the case including that of the complainant as well. To disprove the presumption, the accused has to bring on record such facts and circumstances upon consideration of which the court may either believe that the consideration did not exist or its non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would, under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that Case No. 16573/2016 Praveen Jain Vs. Neeraj Bansal Page No. 15 of 21 it did not exist." (Reliance placed on Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company v. Amin Chand Pyarelal, (1993) 3 SCC 35 )
21. The NI Act also provides under Section 139 that it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. Thus, Section 139 of the Act is an example of a reverse onus clause that has been included in furtherance of the legislative objective of improving the credibility of negotiable instruments. It is a settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139 , the standard of proof for doing so is that of `preponderance of probabilities'. Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. The accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is conceivable that in some cases the accused may not need to adduce evidence of his/her own. (Reliance placed on Rangappa vs Sri Mohan, (Criminal Appeal no 1020 of 2010 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court).
22. Though accused had taken consistent stand that complainant was LIC agent and while taking up one of the policy, the complainant took up the cheque to renew such Case No. 16573/2016 Praveen Jain Vs. Neeraj Bansal Page No. 16 of 21 policy. However there are certain circumstances which proves the case of the complainant beyond reasonable doubt and accused has not been able to displace the case of the complainant upon preponderance of probability.
23. Firstly, it is admitted position that the complainant and the accused are known to each other for long time, which has not been denied by the accused. Even in the cross examination and at the time of framing of the notice, the accused have admitted the family terms with the complainant to the extent of 25 to 35 years therefore both the parties are appointed to each other to the fullest cannot be ruled out and stands proved in view of examinations and cross examinations.
24. Secondly, that in the cross examination of the complainant that took on 18.12.2018, the complainant had admitted to have advanced the accused loan amount in cash and had further revealed that he even had shown it in his income tax return. But no suggestion has been placed or have been given by the accused or on the part of the accused to call for such income tax return and even the cross examination was deferred for the next date. Even on the next date of hearing, when the company was cross-examined i.e. 06.08.2019, there is no insistent for summoning such income tax return or whether he had brought such document or whether he can bring it again. This has to be interpreted against the accused.
Case No. 16573/2016 Praveen Jain Vs. Neeraj Bansal Page No. 17 of 2125. Thirdly, though the sum assured with respect to LIC policy was ₹ 30,000 and that too was paid yearly, it is rather strange that in such a case, no exact amount would be filled by the accused and accused would hand over a blank cheque to fill any amount which he feels at his leisure, even to the risk of dishonourment, if the amount of the accused would not had sufficient fund.
26. Fourthly, as to the fact of cash which was handed over to the accused, in the cross examination of the complainant there is not even a single suggestion with respect to the place or time when such amount was handed over. Though there have been instance wherein reference have been made to the complaint when no such facts have been mentioned with respect to date and time upon which such cash amount was advance however there is not even single suggestion or whisper with respect to the denomination of currencies or in front of whom such cash amount was given. Omission to give such suggestions are to be only to be interpreted against the accused.
27. Fifthly, there is not even a whisper of any suggestion on the part of the accused which could challenge the financial capacity of the complainant, which could prove there from that the company and do not have sufficient financial capacity to advance the loan amount will be Rs. 7,50,000.
Case No. 16573/2016 Praveen Jain Vs. Neeraj Bansal Page No. 18 of 21Even Ex. CW1/6 has not been challenged by way of any suggestion which only goes on to fortify the case of the complainant and leads to drawing of inference against the accused.
28. Sixthly, there is even no suggestion which could deny the long relationship of the complainant with the father of the accused and that two of 25 to 30 years rather the relationship between the party stands admitted. The acquaintance of such nature does not rules out that the cash amount would have been advanced. Further non- summoning of the income tax return have to be interpreted adversely to the accused.
29. Seventhly, the act of the accused to examine himself as a defence witness has proved to be not favourable to him as Ex.DW1/3 and Ex. DW1/4 and its careful perusal deals that entry against the cheque no. 665771 dated 02.03.2007 is not only scribbled and has been overwritten but also the make of numeral '2' is altogether different from all other numeral '2' (except for one listed against the date 27.11) written thereon and even upon the overleaf of Ex.DW1/4. This cast serious doubt upon the defence of the accused whose credibility on this very particular point stand shaken. Further this court do not hesitate to observe that the ink of pen against the cheque entry in dispute is rather sharper and dark than the all other entries which appears to be old entry. All this has been confronted to the Case No. 16573/2016 Praveen Jain Vs. Neeraj Bansal Page No. 19 of 21 accused and he was compelled to concede the truth with respect to numeral '2'. This court specifically hold that this piece of evidence Ex.DW1/3 and Ex.DW1/4 do not inspire confidence and has to be a adversely interpreted against the accused.
30. Eightly, the accused have revealed his intention in the latter part of his cross examination that he never wanted to continue with the policy however what has stopped him to ask for the cheque and to cancel the policy still remains a matter of speculation.
31. It is a settled law that standard of proof on the part of an accused and that of the prosecution a criminal case is different and while prosecution must prove the guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of proof so as to prove a defence on the part of an accused is preponderance of probabilities (Reliance placed on Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde, (2008) 4 SCC 54).
32. Hence, with the presumptions arising in favour of the complainant under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act having not been rebutted by the accused by preponderance of probabilities, and with the complainant is able to lead clear, cogent and credible evidence to prove that the cheques in question were issued in discharge of any legally Case No. 16573/2016 Praveen Jain Vs. Neeraj Bansal Page No. 20 of 21 enforceable debt or liability, the accused Sh. Neeraj Bansal S/o Sh. D.N. Bansal is held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Act and hence, accused stands convicted in the present complaint case.
33. Copy of this judgment be given Dasti to the convict.
Announced in the open court on 25.04.2023.
(VAIBHAV CHAURASIA) Metropolitan Magistrate-04/ North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi Certified that this judgment contains 21 pages and each page bears my signature.
(VAIBHAV CHAURASIA) Metropolitan Magistrate-04/ North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi Case No. 16573/2016 Praveen Jain Vs. Neeraj Bansal Page No. 21 of 21