Delhi District Court
Bharat Kapoor vs . M/S Ana Print O Grafix (P) Ltd. on 6 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MR. VAIBHAV CHAURASIA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 04 : NORTH WEST DISTRICT
ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS : NEW DELHI
Bharat Kapoor Vs. M/s Ana Print O Grafix (P) Ltd.
PS Shalimar Bagh
U/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
Date of Institution : 15.09.2011
Date of Judgment : 06.04.2022
JUDGMENT
(1) Serial number of the case : 23703/2016
(2) Name of the complainant : Sh. Bharat Kapoor
S/o.: Sh. Baldev Raj Kapoor, Proprietor of
M/s. Kapoor & Sons Paper Overseas,
Office Address: 102, Radhey Shyam Park,
Parwana Road, Delhi.
(3) Name of the accused : (1) Ana Print O Grafix (P) Ltd.
(represented by accused no. 2 Ajay Rai)
Office at: B46, 1st Floor, Kalkaji,
New Delhi - 110019
(2) Ajay Rai S/o: Sh. C.B. Rai,
Director of M/s. Ana Print O Grafix (P)
Ltd., Office Address: B46, 1st Floor,
Kalkaji, New Delhi - 110019
(4) Offence complained of / : U/S 138 Negotiable Instruments Act,
proved 1881
(5) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
(6) Final Order : Acquitted
(7) Reserved for judgment on : 06.04.2022
Case No. 13611/2016
Bharat Kapoor Vs. M/s Ana Print O Grafix (P) Ltd.
PS Shalimar Bagh page no. 1 Of 16
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. In brief, it is the case of the complainant that the complainant is a reputed supplier and distributor of printing papers and other printed materials; that the accused no. 1 is a company registered under Companies act and accused no. 2 is the director accused, who was associated with the complainant and complainant had been from time to time has been supplying printing papers against invoices; that accordingly against the payment, which was due to the complainant for supply of printing papers, accused no. 2 handed over three cheques with cheques bearing no. 164170, 169990 and 169987 dated 15.02.2011, 15.03.2011, 25.03.2011 respectively for the amount of Rs. 2,74,835, Rs. 1,12,540, and Rs. 1,18,057/respectively were drawn on Canara Bank, Delhi and all three were dishonoured vide return memo dated 15.07.2011 for the reason "exceeds arrangement" and due intimation was was sent by the notice dated 22.07.2011, dispatched to the accused by registered Post and Courier on 25.07.2011 wherein the accused was duly informed regarding dishonour of the cheque and since accused have failed to pay the total sum of Rs. 5,05,432/hence therefore present complainant has been preferred complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act,1881.
2. The complainant led presummoning evidence by way of affidavit (Ex CW1/A) and relied upon documents i.e., : cheque bearing no. 169987 dated 25.03.2011 for Rs. 1,18,057/, cheque bearing no. 169990 dated 15.03.2011 for Rs. 1,12,540/, cheque bearing no. 164170 dated 15.02.2011 for Rs. 2,74,835/ drawn on drawn on Canara Bank, Delhi (Ex.CW1/1, Ex.CW1/2 and Ex.CW1/3 respectively); the bank return Case No. 13611/2016 Bharat Kapoor Vs. M/s Ana Print O Grafix (P) Ltd.
PS Shalimar Bagh page no. 2 Of 16 memo dated 15.07.2011 (Ex CW1/4); legal notice dated 22.07.2011 (Ex.CW1/5), postal receipt (Ex.CW1/6) (Colly), Courier receipt (Ex.CW1/7) (Colly), AD Card (Ex.CW1/8 and Ex.CW1/9) which were duly considered by the Ld Predecessor and the accused was summoned vide order dated 31.08.2013 for offence u/s. 138 NI Act.
3. After the accused entered appearance, he was admitted to bail and notice was framed against him on 18.05.2015 by the Ld Predecessor however notice was framed against the accused on 18.12.2018 wherein the accused stated his defence that the cheques in question bears only his signature and rest of the contents of the cheque were not filled in his handwriting. He had given the cheques in question to the complainant as security as they used to take material from the complainant. He used to make cash payments against the material supplied. He had also given one final cheque for final settlement the receiving of which he have. He had also complained regarding the quality of material supplied to him and due to which he stopped the material from the complainant. The complainant did not return the cheque even after receiving the final payment despite assuring the same. He do not owe any liability towards the complainant in respect of cheque in question. He had not received legal notice of the complainant.
4. After the application of the accused under section 145 (2) NI Act was allowed by the Ld Predecessor vide order dated 18.12.2018, the accused was permitted to crossexamine the complainant.
5. During his evidence, the complainant was duly cross examined by the counsel for accused in which he stated no document has been filed along Case No. 13611/2016 Bharat Kapoor Vs. M/s Ana Print O Grafix (P) Ltd.
PS Shalimar Bagh page no. 3 Of 16 with his complaint regarding proprietorship of his firm and further that no document has been filed regarding registration of his firm under Companies act. No document has been filed for supplying printing paper to the accused no. 1. Complainant further admitted that no bill had been filed along with his complaint regarding supply of any material to the accused. He denied the suggestion that nothing was supplied to the accused, therefore no bills were raised against the accused. It was admitted that he has received Rs. 1 Lakhs through demand draft on the accused however he do not remember date and time of receiving the same. He further admitted that he has received the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 qua demand draft bearing no. 172798 dated 11.03.2011. It is admitted that his office boy received the same and same was tendered as Ex. CW 1/D1. It is further admitted that no return memo was issued by HDFC bank that was to be filed with the complaint. It is further admitted by the complainant during his crossexamination that Rs. 1,00,000 was paid against the cheque no. 164170 dated 15.02.2011 for the sum of Rs. 2,74,875/- which the complainant responded that it is not correct since accused has given them three cheques and made payment of Rs. 1,00,000 was not mentioned to be adjusted towards the cheque. It is admitted by the complainant that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000 received from the accused was not mentioned in the complaint. Further it has been denied by the complainant that accused does not owe any liability towards the complainant or any settlement has been reached between the complainant and the accused. It was further denied by the complainant that any defective material was supplied to the accused and hence the orders were cancelled and matter was settled. Further complainant deposed that he was not deposing falsely.
Case No. 13611/2016Bharat Kapoor Vs. M/s Ana Print O Grafix (P) Ltd.
PS Shalimar Bagh page no. 4 Of 16
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 he reiterated his defence. He stated that the complainant did not supply any printing papers to them. The complainant had only given sample papers which failed in the market. The cheques had been given towards security on a verbal commitment when they had asked for the sample papers. It was further stated that the complainant has misuse the cheques in question. The sample papers supplied by the complainant failed, he had asked the complainant to return the cheque and the complainant did not return and kept it delaying on one pretext or the other. The complainant asked him to clear the old outstanding payment and said that they will return the cheques thereafter. He cleared the outstanding payment along with the payment of sample as he paid Rs. 1 lakh in total. The complainant has still not returned the cheque and has misused the same. The matter was considered to be settled at our hand but still the complainant did not reurn the cheques. The accused revealed his intention to lead defence evidence.
7. The accused examined Sh. Anand Kumar himself as DW1 and himself as DW2.
8. Sh. Anand Kumar, DW1 was examined and crossexamined on 20.07.2019 and 20.09.2019. DW1 deposed that he is working with M/s Ana Print O Graphics since 2007. That in the month of February 2011, his company placed an order for papers with the complainant. At the time of placing the order, the cheques in question were given to the complainant. Thereafter, complainant sent samples of the papers to them, however, the said samples failed in the market. Out of the said Case No. 13611/2016 Bharat Kapoor Vs. M/s Ana Print O Grafix (P) Ltd.
PS Shalimar Bagh page no. 5 Of 16
samples some of them were damaged when they reached to them.
Thereafter they cancelled the order which was previously placed by them in the month of February 2011. Thereafter, they have settled the matter with the complainant for a sum of Rs.1 lakh ie., cost of the samples. When they inquired about the abovesaid cheque, complainant had stated that the same will be handed over at the time of clearance of the abovesaid amount ie., Rs. 1 Lakh. Thereafter the said Rs.1 lakh was paid to the complainant through DD. The said DD was prepared in the month of March. All dues were cleared after handing over the said DD. The cheque had not been returned after taking the DD and complainant lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. As per his knowledge the amount has been settled with the complainant and no dues are pending. DW1 was duly crossexamined wherein he stated that there was no written purchase order but only in verbal. DW1 was confronted with Ex.CW1/D1 wherein he confirmed that it is written word 'Settlement' in Ex.CW1/D1 and the writing at point A is in his handwriting and as per his knowledge the side line was written by him after the settlement between the parties was reached. DW1 denied that invoices were issued and complete material goods were supplied and further that he cannot tell how much quantity material goods were supplied and how much invoices were raised. DW1 further deposed that he cannot tell that the material goods were defective or not, however, the same failed when they have dispatched the same in the market. DW1 admitted that no letter for defective material goods have been issued by any of the party from the market. He further could not remember any letter for defective material goods to have been issued by his firm as everything was in verbal. He could not confirm to say that any 'cancellation of order' letter has been given to complainant or not. It is correct that every Case No. 13611/2016 Bharat Kapoor Vs. M/s Ana Print O Grafix (P) Ltd.
PS Shalimar Bagh page no. 6 Of 16 bill/invoice/challan/letter was gone through by him. DW1 was confronted with copy of Invoice no. 33 Ex.DW1/A (colly) (running in two pages), delivery note (Form DVAT 33) dated 22.01.2011 Ex.DW1/B. Invoice no 35 Ex.DW1/C alongwith delivery note (Form DVAT 33) dated 29.01.2011 Ex.DW1/D. Invoice no 30 Ex.DW1/E dated 04.01.2011 and invoice no. 31 Ex.DW1/F dated 05.01.2011 alongwith delivery note (Form DVAT 33) dated 04.01.2011 Ex.DW1/G (colly) (page no. 1 and
2). Invoice no 21 Ex.DW1/H dated 03.12.2010. Invoice no 22 Ex.DW1/I dated 04.12.2010, all above mentioned invoices and delivery note (Form DVAT 33) but since they were not the part of the complaint therefore no crossexamination was allowed on such point. He further deposed that he is not deposing at the instance of the accused as to save him from the present case.
9. Accused examined himself as DW2 wherein he stated that he is the Director of M/s Ana Print O Grafix Pvt Ltd. That in the month of January
- February 2011, he placed a verbal order for purchasing some papers with the complainant. At the time of placing the order, he handed over the blank cheques in question to the complainant. Thereafter, complainant sent sample paper related to their order. The same paper was dispatched in the market. However, the same failed. Thereafter, he negotiated with the complainant on the cost of sample papers and settled the cost of materials for Rs. 1 lakh. Thereafter, he requested the complainant to return the present cheques in question. Complainant assured to return the same at the time of clearing of abovesaid Rs. 1 lakh. Thereafter, he handed over a DD of Rs. 1 lakh to the complainant already Ex.CW1/D1. However, despite receiving the same, the complainant assured him to return the cheques in question after tracing Case No. 13611/2016 Bharat Kapoor Vs. M/s Ana Print O Grafix (P) Ltd.
PS Shalimar Bagh page no. 7 Of 16 the same as the same is not traceable on that time. Prior to the payment of Rs. 1 lakh through DD we have also made payment of Rs. 24,233/ to the complainant through cheque no. 164192 on 24.02.2011, the copy of the bank statement is Ex.DW2/1. DW2 deposed that he do not have any legal liability towards the complainant in respect of the cheques in question. DW2 was cross examined on 21.12.2019 wherein DW2 stated that he do not know in whose handwriting Ex.CW1/D1 at point A has been written. The draft Ex.CW1/D1 does not bear his signature but the signatures of complainant are at point B. He admitted that the name of the complainant is not mentioned at point B on Ex.CW1/D1. He did not write any letter to the complainant in respect of the defective material as it was all verbal. DW2 denied that no such letter was issued because the material received by them were not defective. He also did not file any letter from his clients stating that the material supplied by him to them were defective, for the reason that it was verbal. He did not receive any invoice from the complainant. He did not issue any C form as complete material was not supplied to him. He did not write any letter in respect of incomplete material having been supplied to him as it was only verbal. DW2 denied that no settlement was arrived at for Rs. 1 lakh or that DD of Rs.1 lakh was given towards part payment only. Further DW2 deposed that It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
10. Final arguments advanced by Sh. Hemant Goel, Ld counsel for the complainant and by Sh. Abhishek Srivastava, Ld. Counsel for the accused and their been carefully considered alongwith the entire evidence on record.
Case No. 13611/2016Bharat Kapoor Vs. M/s Ana Print O Grafix (P) Ltd.
PS Shalimar Bagh page no. 8 Of 16
11. To prove an offence under Section 138 NI Act, it is required to be proved that:
(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.
12. In the case at hand, the accused has not disputed that the cheque in question has been issued on an account maintained by her with a bank and hence the ingredient (i) is deemed to proved as not disputed.
13. In respect of ingredient (iii) and (iv), the complainant has testified that the cheque bearing no. 169987 dated 25.03.2011 for Rs. 1,18,057/, Case No. 13611/2016 Bharat Kapoor Vs. M/s Ana Print O Grafix (P) Ltd.
PS Shalimar Bagh page no. 9 Of 16
cheque bearing no. 169990 dated 15.03.2011 for Rs. 1,12, 540/,
cheque bearing no. 164170 dated 15.02.2011 for Rs. 2,74,835 / drawn on drawn on Canara Bank, Delhi (Ex.CW1/1, Ex. CW1/2 and Ex. CW1/3 respectively) was dishonoured vide the bank return memo dated 15.07.2011 (Ex CW1/4). However it is pertinent to note that photocopy has been filed of Return bank Memo of Ex. CW1/4. During his cross examination, question were put to the complainant wherein he admitted that Bank Return Memo of HDFC bank has not been filed. 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.
14. Further, with the factum of dishonour of the cheque in question being not disputed by the accused and rather as having been admitted by her in her statement under Sec 313 CrPC, the ingredient (iv) is also deemed to be admitted as not disputed however bank return memo stands disputed and same has been acceded by the complainant during his crossexamination.
15. In respect of the legal notice, as CW1, the complainant has testified that upon dishonour of cheque in question, he sent notice dated 27.07.2011 (Ex CW1/5) to the accused for return of the cheque vide postal receipt (Ex CW1/6(Colly)), Courier receipt (Ex.CW1/7(Colly)), AD Card (Ex. CW1/8 and Ex. CW1/9) report and AD card (Ex CW1/7 and Ex CW1/8). No tracking report has been placed on record. The accused has however denied receipt of the notice of demand.
Case No. 13611/2016Bharat Kapoor Vs. M/s Ana Print O Grafix (P) Ltd.
PS Shalimar Bagh page no. 10 Of 16
16. 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.
17. In the present case, it is not the case of the accused that the address on which the notice was sent is not her address, rather she has given the same address in the court when her statement under Section 281 r/w 313 CrPC was being recorded. Hence the notice was sent by the accused at her correct address. For reasons best known to her, the accused has not led any evidence in rebuttal to disprove the report given by the postal official either.
18. Further, in CC Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed & Anr. (Crl. Appeal No. 767 of 2007), the Hon'ble Apex 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 alongwith 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".
Case No. 13611/2016Bharat Kapoor Vs. M/s Ana Print O Grafix (P) Ltd.
PS Shalimar Bagh page no. 11 Of 16
19. 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 22.07.2011 (Ex. CW1/5) the present complaint cannot be rejected and the same is help to have been duly served upon the accused. Further no question has been put to the complainant in this respect in the crossexamination.
20. In respect of ingredient (vi), it is pertinent to note that admittedly the accused has not made any payment to the complainant in respect of the cheque in question till date. Hence even the ingredient (vi) stands proved.
DEBT/LIABILITY
21. 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 nonexistence 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 disentitle him to the grant of relief on the basis of the negotiable instrument. The burden upon the accused proving the nonexistence of the consideration can be either direct or by bringing on record the preponderance of probabilities Case No. 13611/2016 Bharat Kapoor Vs. M/s Ana Print O Grafix (P) Ltd.
PS Shalimar Bagh page no. 12 Of 16 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 nonexistence was so probable that a prudent man would, under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that it did not exist." (Reliance placed on Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company v. Amin Chand Pyarelal, (1993) 3 SCC 35).
22. 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).
Case No. 13611/2016Bharat Kapoor Vs. M/s Ana Print O Grafix (P) Ltd.
PS Shalimar Bagh page no. 13 Of 16
23. In the present case, from the evidence on record, the accused has been able to bring on record certain facts which make the case of the complainant stands displaced.
24. Firstly, complainant though has confronted DW1 with copy of Invoice no. 33 Ex.DW1/A (colly) (running in two pages), delivery note (Form DVAT 33) dated 22.01.2011 Ex.DW1/B. Invoice no 35 Ex.DW1/C alongwith delivery note (Form DVAT 33) dated 29.01.2011 Ex.DW1/D. Invoice no 30 Ex.DW1/E dated 04.01.2011 and invoice no. 31 Ex.DW1/F dated 05.01.2011 alongwith delivery note (Form DVAT 33) dated 04.01.2011 Ex.DW1/G (colly) (page no. 1 and 2). Invoice no 21 Ex.DW1/H dated 03.12.2010. Invoice no 22 Ex.DW1/I dated 04.12.2010 which pertains to December 2010 and primarily of January 2011 but accused has been able to place on record the demand draft of Rs. 1 lakhs of 11th of March, 2011 vide Ex. CW1/D1 and also the bank statement. The Complainant was not taken by surprise as during the crossexamination of the Complainant, he has admitted to have received the amount of Rs. 1 lakhs in the month of March 2011. Accused has already deposed that same is against the Cheque no. 164170 (Ex. CW1/3) for the amount of Rs.2,74,835/ .Even when accused DW2 and DW1 was examined, during crossexamination of both the witnesses, nothing has been brought on record by the complainant wherein it can be shown that demand draft of Rs. 1 Lakh was no adjusted against Cheque no. 164170 (Ex. CW1/3) for the amount of Rs.2,74,835/ or it was adjusted to any other prior debt not covered by the cheque in dispute i.e cheque bearing no. 169987 dated 25.03.2011 for Rs. 1,18,057/, cheque bearing no. 169990 dated 15.03.2011 for Rs. 1,12, 540/, cheque bearing no. 164170 dated 15.02.2011 for Rs. 2,74,835 / Case No. 13611/2016 Bharat Kapoor Vs. M/s Ana Print O Grafix (P) Ltd.
PS Shalimar Bagh page no. 14 Of 16 drawn on drawn on Canara Bank, Delhi (Ex.CW1/1, Ex. CW1/2 and Ex. CW1/3 respectively), therefore since liability which appears prima facie upon accused is less than what complainant is prosecuting himfor and in view of demand draft (Ex. CW1/D1) and explicit admission on part of complainant, the prosecution fails.
25. Secondly, doubt is casted upon Bank Return Memo (Ex.CW1/4) also points towards the procedural lapse on the part of the complainant.
26. Hence, by bringing forth the circumstances as enumerated above, the accused has discharged the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of debt/liability/consideration was improbable/doubtful and hence the onus shifted back to the complainant to prove it as a matter of fact.
27. 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).
28. In view of the above discussion and in the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, the complainant has miserably failed to prove that the cheque in question was issued in discharge of any existing legally enforceable debt or other liability.
Case No. 13611/2016Bharat Kapoor Vs. M/s Ana Print O Grafix (P) Ltd.
PS Shalimar Bagh page no. 15 Of 16
29. Hence, with the presumptions arising in favour of the complainant under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act having been rebutted by the accused by preponderance of probabilities, and with the complainant failing to lead clear, cogent and credible evidence to prove that the cheques in question were issued in discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability, the Accused no. 1 M/s Ana Print O Grafix (P) Ltd and Accused no. 2 Sh. Ajay Rai are held not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and hence, he stands acquitted.
30. Accused no. 1 M/s Ana Print O Grafix (P) Ltd and Accused no. 2 Sh. Ajay Rai are directed to furnish bail bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/ under section 437(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and is directed to be present before the Ld. Appellate Court as and when notice is served upon her.
31. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court on 06.04.2022 (VAIBHAV CHAURASIA) Metropolitan Magistrate04/ North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi Certified that this judgment contains 16 pages and each page bears my signature.
(VAIBHAV CHAURASIA) Metropolitan Magistrate04/ North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi Case No. 13611/2016 Bharat Kapoor Vs. M/s Ana Print O Grafix (P) Ltd.
PS Shalimar Bagh page no. 16 Of 16