Delhi District Court
Arjun Kohli vs . Vijay Kumar on 19 February, 2013
Arjun Kohli Vs. Vijay Kumar CC No.6076/11 & 6484/12 19.02.2013
Present: None.
These are two connected matters.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.02.2013 At 11.20 a.m. Present: AR of the Complainant.
Counsel for the accused.
An exemption application has been filed on behalf of the accused on the ground that his father has gone to hospital for treatment.
Both the sides submit that matter has been settled and that accused has already given PDCs.
Let both the sides to file a written compromise deed.
At request, list on 16.03.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.02.2013 Arora Trading Corporation Vs. Parveen Bhai CC No.4705/10 19.02.2013 Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
He submits that accused is extending threat to the Complainant on phone and he is well aware about the case. He submits that there is every likelihood of arrest of the accused.
As prayed, let NBW be issued against the accused for 28.05.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.02.2013 Arun Sharma Vs. Rakesh Kumar Jain CC No.1596/10 19.02.2013 Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
Accused absent.
It appears that statement of Process Server Ct. Jasmer was recorded by the Ld. Link MM on the last date in respect of execution of Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. and the Ld. Link MM adjourned the matter for consideration. Considered. It is declared that proclamation has been published on 23.10.2012 in the manner required U/s 82(2) (i) Cr.P.C. for appearance of accused on 26.11.2012. By non appearance, accused has made himself liable for an offence U/s 174A IPC first part. A copy of this order and complaint be sent to the concerned SHO so that he can take necessary steps against the accused. Complainant shall provide a copy of complaint.
In view of the report, issuance of process U/s 83 Cr.P.C. would be futile.
Affidavit of complainant can be read in evidence by virtue of Section-145(1) NI Act at any stage and, therefore, there is no necessity to proceed U/s 299 Cr.P.C. File may be taken up whenever the accused is apprehended.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.02.2013 Ashok Garg Vs. Rakesh Gautam @ Rakesh Sharma CC No.1338/10 19.02.2013 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused absent.
Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. received back.
Process Server be called for 20.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.02.2013 M/s Havells India Ltd. Vs. M.K. Anand CC No.6/10 19.02.2013 Present: Ld. Counsel for the Complainant.
Last opportunity for the complainant to comply with the orders for 04.07.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.02.2013 M/s Havells India Ltd. Vs. Md. Zakir Ahmed CC No.48/10 19.02.2013 Present: Ld. Counsel for the Complainant.
Earlier summons be awaited.
Fresh summons be issued for 04.07.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.02.2013 Impartial Chits Fund Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ratnakar Mishra CC No.5166/10 & 5181/10 19.02.2013 Present: Sunil Kumar, Employee of the complainant.
Accused absent.
These are two connected matters.
Sunil Kumar, however, submits that matters have been settled and Complainant has received the entire payment from the accused. He submits that AR will withdraw the complaint.
List on 14.03.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.02.2013 Inder Mohan Arora Vs. Akbar Ali CC No.5929/11 19.02.2013 Present: None for the Complainant.
Accused with counsel.
Notice issued to the Complainant unserved.
Let fresh notice be issued to the Complainant and his ld. counsel for 23.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.02.2013 Jindal Menthol & Investments Ltd. Vs. M/s Hamco Mining & Smelting Ltd. & Ors.
CC No.1923/1019.02.2013 Present: Proxy counsel for the Complainant.
Accused absent.
Summons issued to the accused company for 12.10.2011 is on record showing unserved status. It appears that Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. was executed against accused B.R. Patel for 18.08.2012, however, the Process Server has not been appearing in this case. Let he be called.
It seems that NBW was in operation against accused No.8, however, on the last date an exemption application was filed on her behalf before the Ld. Link MM.
Be awaited for the accused No.8.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.02.2013 At 11.37 a.m. Present: Proxy counsel for the Complainant.
Proxy counsel for accused No.8.
An exemption application has been filed on behalf of accused No.8 on the ground that she is suffering from Fever. No medical certificate has been filed. It appears that even on the last date exemption application was filed on behalf of accused No.8. The exemption application being completely frivolous is dismissed. It appears that earlier NBW was in operation against accused No.8. Let the NBW be issued against accused No.8. It appears that till date even the cost has not been deposited by accused No.8. Therefore, by virtue of Section-431 r/w Section-421 Cr.P.C., let a Warrant of Attachment for recovery of the cost be issued against accused No.8. Considering the delaying conduct of accused No.8, a further cost of Rs.5,000/- is imposed to be deposited with the DLSA.
Complainant to clarify the position of other accused persons. Matter is very old.
List on 18.03.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.02.2013 M/s Canadian Speciality Vinyls (Complainant).
CC No.6587/A/12, 6588/A/12 & 6589/C/12 19.02.2013 Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
These are three matters of the Complainant.
Summons be awaited.
Fresh summons be also issued for 04.06.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.02.2013 Madhur Aggarwal Vs. Kamal Singh Negi CC No.6826/12 19.02.2013 Present: Proxy counsel for the Complainant.
Summons issued for 16.11.2012 is on record which is showing the deliberate attempt on the part of the accused.
In such circumstances, let a BW in the sum of Rs.60,000/- be issued against the accused for 29.05.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.02.2013 Master Dilshad Vs. Krishan Kumar Kushwaha CC No.6437/11 19.02.2013 Present: Dilshad with his mother and counsel.
Accused with counsel.
Ld. Counsel for the Complainant submits that he wants to summon bank witness to clarify the status of payment, if any, made by the accused. Upon taking all necessary steps by the Complainant, let concerned Clerk from the bank be summoned alongwith relevant record if complainant provides their specific details.
Ld. counsel further submits that Complainant will deposit the earlier cost on or before the next date as he is a very poor person.
List on 17.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.02.2013 Brig. (Retd) Prithi Pal Singh Bedi Vs. Premji Nandwani CC No.2043/10 19.02.2013 Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
He submits that Complainant was to file fresh address of the accused, however, he does not have any contact with the complainant.
Let a Notice be issued to the Complainant for 20.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.02.2013 Raj Kumar Arora Vs. Santosh Kumar CC No.4301/10 19.02.2013 Present: None.
NBW against the convict unexecuted.
It, however, appears that the office has not used fresh address of the accused in the NBW.
Let fresh NBW be issued against the convict using the fresh address as provided by the Complainant vide his application dated 21.12.2012.
List on 12.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.02.2013 Raj Kumar Gupta Vs. Sanjay Tyagi CC No.5524/11 & 5536/11 19.02.2013 Present: Complainant in person.
These are two connected matters.
Process be awaited.
In the meantime, earlier orders be complied with and summons be issued through the concerned SHO on all the addresses of the accused for which details to be provided by the Complainant. File are old.
List on 03.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.02.2013 Rajesh Kumar Vs. Renuka @ Radhika CC No.3373/10 19.02.2013 Present: Complainant in person.
Husband of the accused.
Today file has been placed by the office as earlier the office was placing a Parcha Yaddast.
Sh. Jitender Kumar, husband of the accused submits that his counsel is coming.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.02.2013 After lunch time.
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Husband of the accused with counsel.
Ld. counsel for the accused submits that accused is still unable to appear as she had delivered a baby on 08.01.2013.
Let order dated 09.11.2012 be complied with.
List on 28.03.2013 at specific request of ld. counsel for the accused.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.02.2013 M/s Rajshree Prakashan Vs. Syed Mubashir Ahmed CC No.6152/11 19.02.2013 Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
Proxy counsel for the accused.
At request of ld. proxy counsel, be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.02.2013 At 11.54 a.m. Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
Proxy counsel for the accused.
Ld. Proxy counsel is still seeking a passover.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.02.2013 At this stage, Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
Accused with counsel.
An application for cancellation of NBW has been filed on the ground that though the accused had booked the ticket but could not come as he was in serious condition and there were communal riots in Hyderabad.
Given the circumstances, NBW is cancelled. Accused is admitted on bail subject to furnishing of bail bond and surety bond to the tune of Rs.1 lac. He furnished the same. Accepted.
An exemption application has been filed on behalf of the Complainant.
At request of both the sides, matter be sent to Mediation Cell on 20.03.2013 at 12 o'clock returnable on the same day.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.02.2013 Sri Ram Srirangam Vs. Umesh Prasad CC No.6262/10 19.02.2013 Present: None for the Complainant.
Accused with counsel.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.02.2013 At 11.56 a.m. Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused in person.
Navin Kumar from HDFC bank, Old Rajendra Nagar is present. He submits that he has already filed the relevant record.
Accused is, however, seeking an adjournment on the ground that his counsel has gone to Hospital.
Witness be called again.
Witness from HDFC bank, Pitam Pura is not present despite service of summons. A Show Cause Notice be issued to the Branch Manager.
List on 05.04.2013.
At request of ld. counsel for the Complainant, date is changed to 20.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.02.2013 M/s Yashiv Chits (P) Ltd. Vs. Jagjit Singh Negi CC No.4232/10 19.02.2013 Present: None.
It appears that matter is under process of settlement.
Adjourned to 18.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.02.2013 Pankaj Kumar Jain Vs. Satya Prakash Parashar CC No.4112/10, 4125/10 & 4126/10 19.02.2013 Present: None for the Complainant.
Accused in person.
These are three connected matters and the same are at the stage of further cross- examination of the Complainant.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.02.2013 At 11.55 a.m. Present: Complainant in person.
Accused in person.
Complainant is seeking a passover for want of counsel.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.02.2013 At 12.44 p.m. Present: Complainant in person.
Accused in person.
They are still seeking passover for want of counsels.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.02.2013 At 02.54 p.m. Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
Complainant further cross-examined. Discharged.
It appears that otherwise the matters were at the stage of defence evidence and accused has already examined himself in defence. Ld. counsel for the accused submits that they want to examine one more witness from Income Tax Department. Subject to taking of appropriate and necessary steps, last opportunity shall be available with the accused to lead defence evidence.
List on 20.03.2013.
At request of both the sides, date is changed to 05.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.02.2013 M/s Padmini Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajiv Bajaj CC No.925/10 19.02.2013 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Proxy counsel for the accused.
An exemption application has been filed on behalf of the accused.
Ld. Counsel seeks a passover so that ld. main counsel can come.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.02.2013 At 01.35 p.m. Present: Complainant with counsel.
Counsel for the accused.
Arguments heard.
Put up for orders on 28.02.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.02.2013 Ashok Taneja Vs. M/s Veenus Sports Wear Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
CC No.6327/1119.02.2013 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused Lalit and Rajesh with counsel.
An exemption application is filed on behalf of accused Dharmender on the ground that he is suffering from Viral Fever. Subject to furnishing of medical papers within five days, accused Dharmender shall be exempted for today.
It appears that an application for cancellation of NBW has been filed by the accused Rajesh. Though the conduct appearing from the report on processes does not inspire confidence, the accused Rajesh is admitted on bail as the offence is bailable one. As such application is disposed of. Accused Rajesh to furnish bail bond and surety bond to the tune of Rs.20,000/-. He furnished the same. Accepted. Ld. counsel for the accused submits that a settlement was arrived at between the parties out of the court and all the matters were sorted out but the complainant presented the cheques without any liability. He further submits that even the settled amount was paid by the accused vide two pay orders which were encashed by the Complainant. The Complainant is seeking time to check and confirm the position.
List on 16.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.02.2013 T T Ltd. Vs. Nitin Aggarwal CC No.5968/10 19.02.2013 Present: AR of the Complainant.
Report has been made by the office that process could not issued and that even the AR is not sure about filing of process fee.
Ahlmad to be cautious in future.
Let the summons be issued afresh through all available modes for 27.05.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.02.2013 M/s H.S. Traders Vs. M/s Dayal Sons & Anr.
CC No.2306/10
19.02.2013
Present: Parties in person.
Both the ld. counsels are not available whereas clarifications are required as observed in order dated 16.08.2012.
By way of last opportunity, list on 06.03.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.02.2013 M/s Atlantic Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ramesh Rao CC No.7192/13 19.02.2013 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 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 ld. counsel, 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 06.06.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.02.2013 Sugam Pandey Vs. Kamal Vishnoi & Anr.
CC No.7257/1319.02.2013 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 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 ld. counsel, 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 and 2 be summoned through all available modes for 29.05.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.02.2013 Pankaj Kumar Jain Vs. Satya Prakash Parashar CC No.4112/10, 4125/10 & 4126/10 19.02.2013 Statement of CW1 Mr. Pankaj Kumar Jain, Complainant (recalled for further cross- examination).
XXXXX by Mr. M.S. Khan, Ld. Counsel for the accused. On S.A. I have seen the cheque Exh.CW1/1. The name written just against word pay is in my writing. I, myself, have written my name Pankaj Kumar Jain on the cheque. I have shown the said cheque in my accounts and Income Tax Returns.
Q. Can you produce those accounts and Income Tax Returns for the perusal of the Hon'ble Court ?
Ans. No. It is wrong to suggest that I am not inclined to produce those returns and accounts as I have not shown the said cheques in them. In my pre-summoning evidence I had not mentioned the fact of Cash Receipt of Rs.1,50,000/-. It is wrong to suggest that Receipt Exh.DW1/CW has been handed over to me by Satish Kumar Kansal. Exh.DW1/CW does not bear my name to show that it is issued to me. I had not shown Exh.DW1/CW in my book of account or in my returns. It is wrong to suggest that my present complaint case is a false case and I had filed this case on behest of Satish Kumar Kansal. It is wrong to suggest that accused had never taken any loan of Rs.2,20,000/- from me as stated by me in my complaint and evidence. It is wrong to suggest that' that is why I am not producing my book of accounts and returns before the Hon'ble Court. It is wrong to suggest that I have falsely stated in my complaint and my evidence that accused had asked for friendly financial assistance. It is wrong to suggest that accused had never issued or handed over Cheque bearing No.132282 to 132286 to me. It is wrong to suggest that the Notice issued by me was never received by the accused or that it was issued on incorrect address. It is wrong to suggest that my complaint is false and that I am deposing falsely. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.02.2013 Smt. Poonam Gupta Vs. Ankur CC No.7235/13 19.02.2013 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 ld. counsel, 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 12.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.02.2013