Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

K.K. Chopra vs . Praveen Kumar Sharma on 12 April, 2012

K.K. Chopra        Vs.     Praveen Kumar Sharma

C.C.No.4275/10

12.04.2012

Present: None for the complainant.

Accused Parveen Kumar Sharma with ld. counsel.

Mr. Vijay Pal Rana from Kangra Cooperative Bank is present with verified true copy of Account Statement and Account Opening Form.

Mr. Pankaj Kumar from State Bank of Patiala is present with certified copies of cheques and account statement.

Be awaited for the complainant.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 At 03.30 p.m. Present: None for the complainant.

Accused with counsel.

Mr. Vijay Pal Rana has filed his written explanation stating that he appeared late due to office exigencies. He is warned to be careful in future.

No one is appearing on behalf of the complainant.

Both the witnesses are discharged unexamined. Their documents have not been taken on record as they have been discharged unexamined.

Even on the last, no one was present on behalf of the complainant.

Matter is very old and is still at the stage of complainant's evidence. It may be noted that it was the complainant who had called the witnesses for his evidence.

The complaint is dismissed for non appearance and default.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 M/s Garg Agencies Vs. Sanjay Verma C.C.No.6481/12 & 6482/12 12.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Manoj Jain, AR of the complainant firm. On S.A. I, the above named AR of the complainant firm do hereby state that the matter has been amicably settled with the accused in full and final settlement in the present complaint case. Accused has paid Rs.4,50,000/- by way of two Demand Drafts bearing No.862956 dated 04.04.2012 and 250015 dated 04.04.2012 of Rs.2,25,000/- each. I have no further grievance against the accused and nothing remains due towards the accused.

Therefore, the matter may be treated as compounded U/s 147 NI Act. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 M/s Garg Agencies Vs. Sanjay Verma C.C.No.6481/12 & 6482/12 12.04.2012 Present: AR of the complainant firm with ld. counsel Sh. Rajesh Raina.

Accused with ld. counsel Sh. Suresh Kumar.

The matter has been settled between the parties.

Separate statement of AR of the complainant firm recorded.

The matter stands compounded U/s 147 NI Act.

Accused is acquitted of the charges.

Bail Bond and Surety Bond, if any, be discharged.

Earlier regular date i.e. 03.05.2012 stands cancelled.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 M/s Radhika Steel Enterprises Vs. Rajcon Construction Ltd.

C.C.No.6480/12

12.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Anoop Khandelwal, AR of the complainant firm. On S.A. I, the above named AR of the complainant firm do hereby tender my evidence by way of affidavit Exh.CW1/A which bears my signatures at Point A and Point B. I hereby close my Pre- summoning evidence.

RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 M/s Radhika Steel Enterprises Vs. Rajcon Construction Ltd.

C.C.No.6481/12

12.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Anoop Khandelwal, AR of the complainant firm. On S.A. I, the above named AR of the complainant firm do hereby tender my evidence by way of affidavit Exh.CW1/A which bears my signatures at Point A and Point B. I hereby close my Pre- summoning evidence.

RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 M/s Radhika Steel Enterprises Vs. Rajcon Construction Ltd.

C.C.No.6490/12

12.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Anoop Khandelwal, AR of the complainant firm. On S.A. I, the above named AR of the complainant firm do hereby tender my evidence by way of affidavit Exh.CW1/A which bears my signatures at Point A and Point B. I hereby close my Pre- summoning evidence.

RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 M/s ITJ Retails Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Thakur Singh C.C.No.1126/10 12.04.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.

Accused with proxy counsel.

Ld. Counsel for the complainant submits that complainant has already deposited the cost of Rs.5,000/- with the DLSA. He is directed to furnish the receipt thereof.

Ld. Counsel for the complainant has filed an application for substitution of AR alongwith a copy of Resolution. AR stands substituted.

Mr. Ashish Sharma will be the AR of the complainant.

Ld. Counsel has filed an exemption application on behalf of the AR on the ground that AR is not well. This is completely a frivolous attempt on the part of the complainant to delay the matter. No details have been mentioned in the application and the ground is further not supported by any documentary proof. The application is, therefore, dismissed.

Ld. Counsel for the complainant is, however, seeking time to lead evidence by filing affidavit of his new AR.

One opportunity to the complainant.

List on 07.06.2012.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 M/s ITJ Retails Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Thakur Singh C.C.No.5276/10 12.04.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.

Accused with ld. proxy counsel.

Ld. Counsel has filed an exemption application on behalf of the AR on the ground that AR is not well. This is completely a frivolous attempt on the part of the complainant to delay the matter. No details have been mentioned in the application and the ground is further not supported by any documentary proof. The application is, therefore, dismissed.

Ld. Counsel for the complainant is, however, seeking time to lead evidence by filing affidavit of his new AR.

One opportunity to the complainant.

List on 07.06.2012.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 M/s K.B. Industries Vs. M/s Industrial Stationers C.C.No.6479/12 12.04.2012 Present: Ld. Counsel for the complainant.

An exemption application has been filed on behalf of AR. The application is dismissed without being merit. However, since the matter is at the stage of consideration, one more opportunity is given to the complainant for 22.05.2012.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 M/s Radhika Steel Enterprises Vs. Rajcon Construction Ltd.

C.C.No.6490/12

12.04.2012 Present: AR of the complainant firm with Ld. Counsel Sh. Dinesh Rohilla.

After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation and jurisdiction (GE Capital Transportation Services Ltd. Vs. Rahisuddin Khan dated 09.09.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi), I am of the opinion that prima facie a case for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is made out against the accused person.

A summons be issued against accused No.2, 3 and 4 for the next date of hearing. Complainant shall file necessary process fee.

Summons shall also be sent through the mode of speed post and authorized courier.

Complainant shall ensure the filing of sufficient number of copies of the complaint as provided in section-204(3) Cr.PC.

Complainant to file the Process fees within 10 days.

Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section-204(4) Cr.PC. empowering the court to dismiss the complaint in case steps as directed above are not taken within a reasonable time.

Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial procedure on 02.07.2012.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 M/s Radhika Steel Enterprises Vs. Rajcon Construction Ltd.

C.C.No.6481/12

12.04.2012 Present: AR of the complainant firm with Ld. Counsel Sh. Dinesh Rohilla.

After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation and jurisdiction (GE Capital Transportation Services Ltd. Vs. Rahisuddin Khan dated 09.09.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi), I am of the opinion that prima facie a case for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is made out against the accused person.

A summons be issued against accused No.2, 3 and 4 for the next date of hearing. Complainant shall file necessary process fee.

Summons shall also be sent through the mode of speed post and authorized courier.

Complainant shall ensure the filing of sufficient number of copies of the complaint as provided in section-204(3) Cr.PC.

Complainant to file the Process fees within 10 days.

Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section-204(4) Cr.PC. empowering the court to dismiss the complaint in case steps as directed above are not taken within a reasonable time.

Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial procedure on 02.07.2012.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 M/s Radhika Steel Enterprises Vs. Rajcon Construction Ltd.

C.C.No.6480/12

12.04.2012 Present: AR of the complainant firm with Ld. Counsel Sh. Dinesh Rohilla.

After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation and jurisdiction (GE Capital Transportation Services Ltd. Vs. Rahisuddin Khan dated 09.09.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi), I am of the opinion that prima facie a case for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is made out against the accused person.

A summons be issued against accused No.2, 4 and 5 for the next date of hearing. Complainant shall file necessary process fee.

Summons shall also be sent through the mode of speed post and authorized courier.

Complainant shall ensure the filing of sufficient number of copies of the complaint as provided in section-204(3) Cr.PC.

Complainant to file the Process fees within 10 days.

Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section-204(4) Cr.PC. empowering the court to dismiss the complaint in case steps as directed above are not taken within a reasonable time.

Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial procedure on 02.07.2012.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 Nambro Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.D. Marchant Bankers Ltd. & Ors.

C.C.No.6580/12

12.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Tarnjeet Singh, AR of the complainant company. On S.A. I, the above named AR of the complainant firm do hereby tender my evidence by way of affidavit Exh.CW1/A which bears my signatures at Point A and Point B. I rely upon all the documents/exhibits referred to in my affidavit which is Exh.CW1/A. I have filed on record Board Resolution Exh.CW1/1 and Power of Attorney Exh.CW1/2 (OSR). I hereby close my Pre-summoning evidence.

RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 Nambro Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.D. Buildwell Ltd. & Ors.

C.C.No.6579/12

12.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Tarnjeet Singh, AR of the complainant company. On S.A. I, the above named AR of the complainant firm do hereby tender my evidence by way of affidavit Exh.CW1/A which bears my signatures at Point A and Point B. I rely upon all the documents/exhibits referred to in my affidavit which is Exh.CW1/A. I have filed on record Board Resolution Exh.CW1/1 and Power of Attorney Exh.CW1/2 (OSR). I hereby close my Pre-summoning evidence.

RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 Namdhari Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.D. Marchant Bankers Ltd. & Ors.

C.C.No.6578/12

12.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Tarnjeet Singh, AR of the complainant company. On S.A. I, the above named AR of the complainant company do hereby tender my evidence by way of affidavit Exh.CW1/A which bears my signatures at Point A and Point B. I rely upon all the documents/exhibits referred to in my affidavit which is Exh.CW1/A. I have filed on record Board Resolution Exh.CW1/1 and Power of Attorney Exh.CW1/2 (OSR). I hereby close my Pre-summoning evidence.

RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 M/s TCI Freight Vs. M/s Air Link Engineers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

C.C.No.6411/11

12.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Rajender Kumar Verma, AR of the complainant firm. On S.A. I, the above named AR of the complainant firm do hereby tender my evidence by way of affidavit Exh.CW1/A which bears my signatures at Point A and Point B. I hereby close my Pre- summoning evidence.

RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 M/s Hari Ram Gulab Rai Vs. Ms. Neelam Dhawan C.C.No.6453/11 12.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Sanjay Gupta, AR of the complainant firm. On S.A. I, the above named AR of the complainant firm do hereby tender my evidence by way of affidavit Exh.CW1/A which bears my signatures at Point A and Point B. I also rely upon additional affidavit Exh.CW1/B, Authority Letter Exh.CW1/1 and Proof of Delivery of Notice Exh.CW1/12 (colly). I hereby close my Pre-summoning evidence.

RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 Prahlad Swaroop Aggarwal Vs. Gopal Dass C.C.No.185/10 12.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Prahlad Swaroop, Complainant. On S.A. I, the above named complainant do hereby tender my evidence by way of affidavit Exh.CW-1 which bears my signatures at Point A and Point B. I hereby close my Post-summoning evidence. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 Rajesh Kumar C. Nayak Vs. P.N. Choudhary C.C.No.6498/12 12.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Rajesh Kumar C. Nayak, Complainant. On S.A. I, the above named complainant do hereby tender my evidence by way of affidavit Exh.CW-1 which bears my signatures at Point A and Point B. I hereby close my Pre-summoning evidence. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 Pankaj Suhag Vs. M/s Samsung Data System India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

C.C.No.6575/12

12.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Pankaj Suhag, Complainant. On S.A. I, the above named complainant do hereby tender my evidence by way of affidavit Exh.CW1/1 which bears my signatures at Point A and Point B. I hereby close my Pre-summoning evidence.

RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 E.P. Parmesawaran Vs. N. Pradeep Rao C.C.No.6020/11 12.04.2012 Statement of Mr. E.P. Parmesawaran, Complainant. On S.A. I, the above named complainant do hereby tender my evidence by way of affidavit Exh.CW1/A which bears my signatures at Point A and Point B. I hereby close my Pre-summoning evidence.

RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 Mohd. Qaseem Vs. Masood Ahmad Khan C.C.No.6577/12 12.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Mohd. Qaseem, Complainant. On S.A. I, the above named complainant do hereby tender my evidence by way of affidavit Exh.CW1/1 which bears my signatures at Point A and Point B. I hereby close my Pre-summoning evidence.

RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 M/s JK Tyre & Industries Ltd. Vs. Rakesh Kumar Garg C.C.No.6541/12 12.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Ashok Barthwal, Power of Attorney of the Complainant. On S.A. I, the above named complainant do hereby tender my evidence by way of affidavit Exh.CW-1 which bears my signatures at Point A and Point B. I rely upon the Power of Attorney Exh.CW1/1 (OSR). I hereby close my Pre-summoning evidence. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 Inderpal Arora Vs. Sachin Sehgal C.C.No.6573/12 12.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Inderpal Arora, Complainant. On S.A. I, the above named complainant do hereby tender my evidence by way of affidavit Exh.CW-1/A which bears my signatures at Point A and Point B. I hereby close my Pre-summoning evidence.

RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 Inderpal Arora Vs. Amit Sachdeva C.C.No.6574/12 12.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Inderpal Arora, Complainant. On S.A. I, the above named complainant do hereby tender my evidence by way of affidavit Exh.CW-1/A which bears my signatures at Point A and Point B. I hereby close my Pre-summoning evidence.

RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 M/s Pioneer Colors & Coating Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vijay Kumar C.C.No.5432/11 12.04.2012 Present: None.

As per Nazarat Branch, Process has not been received back from the out of station court.

It appears that no one has been appearing on behalf of the complainant for the last several dates. Notices issued to the complainant has also not been received back from the out of station court even after several dates. It appears that counsel for the complainant is based in Delhi. It would be better to issue a notice to the ld. counsel for the complainant also. Accordingly, let a notice be issued to the complainant and his ld. counsel for 05.05.2012.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 Ran Mal Jain Vs. M/s Sant Engineers & Fabricators Pvt. Ltd.

C.C.No.6002/11

12.04.2012 Record of the examination of Accused Kulwant Singh Bhamrah, S/o Sh. Pritam Singh, aged about 60 years, R/o M-273, Guru Harkishan Nagar, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110087 under section 251 and 263(g), 313 r.w. 281(6) Cr.P.C.

Without oath.

I, the above named accused had given the Cheque in question to the complainant. This cheque is from my account. The cheque bears my signature. Other columns of the cheque in question has been filled in by me son. I had given this cheque in question to the complainant against the supply of goods. I had received the supplied goods but the same was found defective. I had received a legal demand notice but I had not replied to the same. Cheque returning memo Exh.CW1/3 is not disputed. I want to lead defence evidence.

RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 Ran Mal Jain Vs. M/s Sant Engineers & Fabricators Pvt. Ltd.

C.C.No.6002/11

12.04.2012

Present:       Counsel for the complainant.
               Accused with counsel.

Offence is bailable one, therefore, accused is admitted on bail subject to furnishing of bail bond and surety bond to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. Accused furnished the same. Accepted. Original FDR of the Surety of Rs.10,000/- be retained on record.

Accusation explained over to the accused.

His Plea and Examination recorded separately.

List on defence evidence on 31.05.2012.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 Santosh Kumar Vs. Devender Kumar @ Kaalu & Ors.

C.C.No.5783/11

12.04.2012

Present:       Complainant in person.
               Accused No.1 in person.

Both the ld. counsels are not available. Parties are seeking adjournment.

One opportunity for the parties.

Matter be adjourned to 31.05.2012.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 Satish Sharma Vs. M/s Shanti Traders C.C.No.2630/B 12.04.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.

Accused in person.

Matter is listed for further cross-examination of the complainant. However, accused is seeking adjournment for the want of counsel.

It appears that only one opportunity was provided by the Ld. Revisional Court. However, at the request of the ld. counsel for the accused, further cross-examination was deferred.

No further opportunity can be given to the accused.

Cross-examination of the complainant closed.

It further appears that Ld. Revisional Court had directed the accused to take all necessary steps in terms of order dated 17.12.2011 and the time was given to the accused till 01.03.2012.

The accused only chose to file an application U/s 145(2) NI Act whereas vide order dated 17.12.2011, matter was directed to be listed for defence evidence. Since no other steps in defence have been taken by the accused, further opportunity cannot be given to him. In the order dated 29.02.2012, the Ld. Revisional Court clearly mentioned that no further opportunity could be granted to the accused.

List for final arguments on 25.04.2012.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 Subal Mandal Vs. R.R. Tripathi C.C.No.2272/10 12.04.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.

Counsel for the accused.

Ld. Counsel has filed exemption application on behalf of the accused on the ground that accused has gone to his native place. Application is completely frivolous. Dismissed.

Ld. Counsel for the accused, however, submits that Ld. Revisional Court has granted stay in the proceedings.

No order has been received from the Ld. Revisional Court.

Ld. Counsel has to file a certified copy of the order.

Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that the date in the Revisional Court is 01.05.2012.

List on 10.05.2012.

At request, date is changed to 09.05.2012.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 Rajesh Kumar C. Nayak Vs. P.N. Choudhary C.C.No.6498/12 12.04.2012 Present: Complainant with Ld. Counsel.

After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation and jurisdiction (GE Capital Transportation Services Ltd. Vs. Rahisuddin Khan dated 09.09.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi), I am of the opinion that prima facie a case for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is made out against the accused person.

A summons be issued against accused P.N. Choudhary for the next date of hearing. Complainant shall file necessary process fee.

Summons shall also be sent through the mode of speed post and authorized courier.

Complainant shall ensure the filing of sufficient number of copies of the complaint as provided in section-204(3) Cr.PC.

Complainant to file the Process fees within 10 days.

Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section-204(4) Cr.PC. empowering the court to dismiss the complaint in case steps as directed above are not taken within a reasonable time.

Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial procedure on 23.07.2012.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 Mohd. Qaseem Vs. Masood Ahmad Khan Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.

C.C.No.6577/12

12.04.2012

Present:      Complainant with Ld. Counsel.

After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation and jurisdiction (GE Capital Transportation Services Ltd. Vs. Rahisuddin Khan dated 09.09.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi), I am of the opinion that prima facie a case for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is made out against the accused person.

A summons be issued against accused Masood Ahmad Khan for the next date of hearing.

Complainant shall file necessary process fee.

Summons shall also be sent through the mode of speed post and authorized courier.

Complainant shall ensure the filing of sufficient number of copies of the complaint as provided in section-204(3) Cr.PC.

Complainant to file the Process fees within 10 days.

Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section-204(4) Cr.PC. empowering the court to dismiss the complaint in case steps as directed above are not taken within a reasonable time.

Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial procedure on 23.07.2012.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 Rohit Valecha Vs. M/s Rajiv Auto Store File taken up on an application for cancellation of NBW moved by the accused.

C.C.No.21/10

12.04.2012

Present:       Accused with counsel.

Accused submits that his Mother-in-law has expired on 24.01.2012. Accused filed copy of receipt from Punjabi Bagh Shamshan Bhumi Sudhar Samiti. He further submits that a condolence meeting was fixed for 13.02.2012 and accused could not appear on that day.

It appears that no such ground of condolence meeting was taken on 13.02.2012 when the exemption of the accused was dismissed. However, since today accused is present, NBW is cancelled subject to his furnishing of relevant material or witness to establish such condolence meeting.

List on date fixed i.e. 16.04.2012.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 Lalit Maggo Vs. Ms. Sonu Oberoi File taken up on an application for cancellation of NBW.

C.C.No.843/10

12.04.2012

Present:       Accused with counsel.

Accused submits that she was busy in the school of her child as she was the only guardian available at the relevant period. She filed copy of Progress Card of Meher Oberoi. She has also filed a copy of letter dated 03.01.2012 received from Pestle Weed College showing a requirement of interview of her elder daughter on 27.01.2012 and 28.01.2012. Ld. Counsel submits that this document has been filed to show bonafide in respect of non appearance on 28.01.2012. She further submits that document in respect of Meher Oberoi has been filed to show bonafide in respect of non appearance on 28.03.2012.

Considering the circumstances, NBW is cancelled.

List on 21.04.2012.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 Prahlad Swaroop Aggarwal Vs. Gopal Dass C.C.No.185/10 12.04.2012 Present: Complainant in person.

Complainant filed his affidavit in evidence.

The same can be read whenever the accused is apprehended.

It appears that no compliance has been made in respect of direction to register an FIR against the accused.

In terms of last order, SHO is directed to register an FIR against the accused for an offence punishable U/s 174-A IPC.

File be consigned to Record Room.

A copy of this order be sent to concerned SHO.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 Pankaj Suhag Vs. M/s Samsung Data System India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.

C.C.No.6575/12

12.04.2012

Present:      Complainant with Ld. Counsel.

After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation and jurisdiction (GE Capital Transportation Services Ltd. Vs. Rahisuddin Khan dated 09.09.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi), I am of the opinion that prima facie a case for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is made out against the accused person.

A summons be issued against accused No.1, 2 and 3 for the next date of hearing. Complainant shall file necessary process fee.

Summons shall also be sent through the mode of speed post and authorized courier.

Complainant shall ensure the filing of sufficient number of copies of the complaint as provided in section-204(3) Cr.PC.

Complainant to file the Process fees within 10 days.

Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section-204(4) Cr.PC. empowering the court to dismiss the complaint in case steps as directed above are not taken within a reasonable time.

Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial procedure on 13.07.2012.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 E.P. Parmesawaran Vs. N. Pradeep Rao C.C.No.6020/12 12.04.2012 Present: Complainant with Ld. Counsel.

After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation and jurisdiction (GE Capital Transportation Services Ltd. Vs. Rahisuddin Khan dated 09.09.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi), I am of the opinion that prima facie a case for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is made out against the accused person.

A summons be issued against accused N. Pradeep Rao for the next date of hearing. Complainant shall file necessary process fee.

Summons shall also be sent through the mode of speed post and authorized courier.

Complainant shall ensure the filing of sufficient number of copies of the complaint as provided in section-204(3) Cr.PC.

Complainant to file the Process fees within 10 days.

Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section-204(4) Cr.PC. empowering the court to dismiss the complaint in case steps as directed above are not taken within a reasonable time.

Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial procedure on 24.07.2012.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 M/s Mars Shipping and Logistics Vs. M.S. Arora C.C.No.4122/10 12.04.2012 Present: Both the parties with their counsels.

Partied failed to arrived at any settlement.

Consequently, I have heard both the parties on the sentence.

Convict prayed for leniency on the ground that he was always ready to pay the cheque amount and even today he has brought a DD of Rs.44,046/-. He further submits that he had at one point of time paid Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

Ld. Counsel for the complainant submits that had the convict given some more amount to include litigation expenses, complainant could have settled the matter.

Having considered the submissions, I am of the view that end of justice would be met if a fine of Rs.70,000/- is imposed upon the convict. In default, convict shall suffer a simple imprisonment of two months. Out of the fine, Rs.60,000/- to be paid to the complainant as compensation U/s 357(1) Cr.P.C. Remaining amount to be deposited with the State.

Ld. Counsel wants to move application for suspension of sentence.

Be awaited.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 At 03.45 p.m. Present: As above.

Convict has moved an application for suspension of sentence.

He is admitted on bail subject to furnishing of bail bond and surety bond to the tune of Rs. 7,000/-.

Ld. Counsel for the convict has, however, prayed that personal bond may be accepted for two days. As such personal bond is accepted till the next date.

List on 16.04.2012.

A copy of this order be given to the convict.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 M/s Hari Ram Gulab Rai Vs. Ms. Neelam Dhawan C.C.No.6453/11 12.04.2012 Present: AR of the Complainant firm with Ld. Counsel.

After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation and jurisdiction (GE Capital Transportation Services Ltd. Vs. Rahisuddin Khan dated 09.09.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi), I am of the opinion that prima facie a case for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is made out against the accused person.

A summons be issued against accused Ms. Neelam Dhawan for the next date of hearing.

Complainant shall file necessary process fee.

Summons shall also be sent through the mode of speed post and authorized courier.

Complainant shall ensure the filing of sufficient number of copies of the complaint as provided in section-204(3) Cr.PC.

Complainant to file the Process fees within 10 days.

Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section-204(4) Cr.PC. empowering the court to dismiss the complaint in case steps as directed above are not taken within a reasonable time.

Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial procedure on 21.07.2012.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 M/s TCI Freight Vs. M/s Air Link Engineers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

C.C.No.6411/11

12.04.2012 Present: AR of the Complainant firm with Ld. Counsel.

After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation and jurisdiction (GE Capital Transportation Services Ltd. Vs. Rahisuddin Khan dated 09.09.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi), I am of the opinion that prima facie a case for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is made out against the accused person.

A summons be issued against accused No.1, 2 and 5 for the next date of hearing. Complainant shall file necessary process fee.

Summons shall also be sent through the mode of speed post and authorized courier.

Complainant shall ensure the filing of sufficient number of copies of the complaint as provided in section-204(3) Cr.PC.

Complainant to file the Process fees within 10 days.

Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section-204(4) Cr.PC. empowering the court to dismiss the complaint in case steps as directed above are not taken within a reasonable time.

Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial procedure on 21.07.2012.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 Nambro Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.D. Marchant Bankers Ltd. & Ors.

C.C.No.6580/12

12.04.2012 Present: AR of the Complainant company with Ld. Counsel.

After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation and jurisdiction (GE Capital Transportation Services Ltd. Vs. Rahisuddin Khan dated 09.09.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi), I am of the opinion that prima facie a case for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is made out against the accused person.

A summons be issued against accused No.1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 for the next date of hearing. Complainant shall file necessary process fee.

Summons shall also be sent through the mode of speed post and authorized courier.

Complainant shall ensure the filing of sufficient number of copies of the complaint as provided in section-204(3) Cr.PC.

Complainant to file the Process fees within 10 days.

Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section-204(4) Cr.PC. empowering the court to dismiss the complaint in case steps as directed above are not taken within a reasonable time.

Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial procedure on 21.07.2012.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 Namdhari Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.D. Marchant Bankers Ltd. & Ors.

C.C.No.6578/12

12.04.2012 Present: AR of the Complainant company with Ld. Counsel.

After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation and jurisdiction (GE Capital Transportation Services Ltd. Vs. Rahisuddin Khan dated 09.09.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi), I am of the opinion that prima facie a case for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is made out against the accused person.

A summons be issued against accused No.1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 for the next date of hearing. Complainant shall file necessary process fee.

Summons shall also be sent through the mode of speed post and authorized courier.

Complainant shall ensure the filing of sufficient number of copies of the complaint as provided in section-204(3) Cr.PC.

Complainant to file the Process fees within 10 days.

Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section-204(4) Cr.PC. empowering the court to dismiss the complaint in case steps as directed above are not taken within a reasonable time.

Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial procedure on 21.07.2012.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 Nambro Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. D.D. Buildwell Ltd. & Ors.

C.C.No.6579/12

12.04.2012 Present: AR of the Complainant company with Ld. Counsel.

After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation and jurisdiction (GE Capital Transportation Services Ltd. Vs. Rahisuddin Khan dated 09.09.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi), I am of the opinion that prima facie a case for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is made out against the accused person.

A summons be issued against accused No.1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 for the next date of hearing. Complainant shall file necessary process fee.

Summons shall also be sent through the mode of speed post and authorized courier.

Complainant shall ensure the filing of sufficient number of copies of the complaint as provided in section-204(3) Cr.PC.

Complainant to file the Process fees within 10 days.

Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section-204(4) Cr.PC. empowering the court to dismiss the complaint in case steps as directed above are not taken within a reasonable time.

Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial procedure on 21.07.2012.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 Inderpal Arora Vs. Amit Sachdeva Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.

C.C.No.6574/12

12.04.2012

Present:      Complainant with Ld. Counsel.

After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation and jurisdiction (GE Capital Transportation Services Ltd. Vs. Rahisuddin Khan dated 09.09.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi), I am of the opinion that prima facie a case for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is made out against the accused person.

A summons be issued against accused Amit Sachdeva for the next date of hearing. Complainant shall file necessary process fee.

Summons shall also be sent through the mode of speed post and authorized courier.

Complainant shall ensure the filing of sufficient number of copies of the complaint as provided in section-204(3) Cr.PC.

Complainant to file the Process fees within 10 days.

Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section-204(4) Cr.PC. empowering the court to dismiss the complaint in case steps as directed above are not taken within a reasonable time.

Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial procedure on 24.07.2012.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 Inderpal Arora Vs. Sachin Sehgal Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.

C.C.No.6573/12

12.04.2012

Present:      Complainant with Ld. Counsel.

After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation and jurisdiction (GE Capital Transportation Services Ltd. Vs. Rahisuddin Khan dated 09.09.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi), I am of the opinion that prima facie a case for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is made out against the accused person.

A summons be issued against accused Sachin Sehgal for the next date of hearing. Complainant shall file necessary process fee.

Summons shall also be sent through the mode of speed post and authorized courier.

Complainant shall ensure the filing of sufficient number of copies of the complaint as provided in section-204(3) Cr.PC.

Complainant to file the Process fees within 10 days.

Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section-204(4) Cr.PC. empowering the court to dismiss the complaint in case steps as directed above are not taken within a reasonable time.

Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial procedure on 24.07.2012.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 M/s JK Tyre & Industries Ltd. Vs. Rakesh Kumar Garg C.C.No.6541/12 12.04.2012 Present: Power of Attorney of the Complainant with Ld. Counsel.

After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation and jurisdiction (GE Capital Transportation Services Ltd. Vs. Rahisuddin Khan dated 09.09.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi), I am of the opinion that prima facie a case for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is made out against the accused person.

A summons be issued against accused Rakesh Kumar Garg for the next date of hearing.

Complainant shall file necessary process fee.

Summons shall also be sent through the mode of speed post and authorized courier.

Complainant shall ensure the filing of sufficient number of copies of the complaint as provided in section-204(3) Cr.PC.

Complainant to file the Process fees within 10 days.

Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section-204(4) Cr.PC. empowering the court to dismiss the complaint in case steps as directed above are not taken within a reasonable time.

Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial procedure on 23.07.2012.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 Ms. Kiran Bala Vs. Mukut Dhari (Khalasi) C.C.No.5004/10 12.04.2012 Present: None for the complainant.

Accused with counsel.

Vide separate judgment, accused is convicted for the offence charged.

Put up for arguments on sentence on 19.04.2012.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012 M/s J.B. Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anil Kalra C.C.No.2134/10 12.04.2012 Present: None.

It appears that earlier today accused was present but now he is not appearing whereas matter is listed for pronouncement of judgment.

Adjourned for the appearance of the parties and pronouncement of judgment on 19.04.2012.

(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/12.04.2012