Delhi District Court
Parampara vs Tarun Pal Singh Oberoi on 6 June, 2025
In the Court of Ms. Poonam Singh
Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act-04)
West District, THC, New Delhi
1. Complaint Case : 46997/2016
number
2. Name & address of the : Parampara
complainant Through its proprietor Sagar
Mehra
S/o Krishan Kumar Mehra
Office at :- F-39, Rajouri
Garden, New Delhi-110066.
3. Name and address : Tarun Pal Singh Oberoi
of the accused At LA Suite Hotel
E-2/14, East Patel Nagar,
Opp. Sidharth Hotel, New
Delhi.
4. Offence complained : Section 138, Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881.
5. Plea of the guilt : Pleaded not guilty
6. Final Order : Acquitted
7. Date of institution : 20.06.2015
8. Date on which : 27.05.2025
reserved for judgment
9. Date of judgment : 06.06.2025
Digitally signed
CC No.46997/2016 by POONAM Page 1 of 18
POONAM SINGH
Date:
SINGH 2025.06.06
17:26:22
+0530
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. The undersigned has been transferred vide Order No.16/DHC/Gaz-IIB/G-7/VI.E2(a)/2025 dated 30.05.2025 passed by Hon'ble High court of Delhi and retained the present file for pronouncement of judgment in terms of directions contained in para 2 of the above said order.
2. Vide this judgement, this court shall dispose of the aforementioned complaint case filed by the complainant namely, Parampara against the accused, namely, Tarun Pal Singh Oberoi in respect of the dishonor of one cheque bearing no.446668 dated 24.03.202015 for an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rs. Thirty Lacs only) drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank, M-14, Connaught Circus, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "Cheque in question"). FACTUAL MATRIX
3. Succinctly put, it is the case of the complainant that the accused was introduced by him by Bank Manager of Punjab & Sind Bank and thereafter friendly relations developed between the parties. Subsequently, the accused demanded a loan of Rs. 15 Lacs from the complainant. It is further the case of the complainant that he gave a loan of Rs. 15 Lacs on 29.9.2009 through bank transfer from his proprietorship firm to the account of the accused and the accused assured the complainant to repay the said amount with interest within 3 months. It is further the case of the Digitally signed CC No.46997/2016 by POONAM Page 2 of 18 POONAM SINGH Date:
SINGH 2025.06.06 17:26:36 +0530 complainant that after several requests, the accused paid an amount of Rs. 10 Lacs to the complainant. It is further alleged that on 09.03.2015 after telephonic conversations between the parties, the accused promised to clear the entire outstanding amount with interest and a final figure of Rs.30 Lacs was agreed between the parties.
4. It is further alleged that the accused issued the cheque in question in discharge of his aforesaid legally enforceable liability to repay the amount of Rs. 30 Lacs. Thereafter, when the complainant presented the cheque in question for encashment, it was returned dishonored for the reason "funds insufficient" vide bank return memo dated 30.03.2015. Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal demand notice dated 08.04.2015 through speed post and courier which was duly served upon the accused. Since the accused failed to pay the amount of the cheque in question within the statutory period of 15 days from the receipt of legal demand notice, hence, the complainant has moved this court with the present complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the "NI Act").
APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED AND TRIAL
5. Upon prima facie consideration of the pre-summoning evidence, accused was summoned vide order dated 06.10.2016.
6. Upon appearance of the accused, notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. At this stage, the accused CC No.46997/2016 Digitally signed by POONAM Page 3 of 18 POONAM SINGH Date:
SINGH 2025.06.06 17:26:42 +0530 admitted to be the drawer of the cheque in question and stated that he has no knowledge how the cheque in question came in possession of complainant. He further stated that the cheque in question was already torn away and he had given some other cheque having the cheque number prior to the cheque number in question to the complainant for friendly borrowing. He denied his liability towards the complainant. He further stated that he had already repaid the loan before filing of the present complaint. He further stated that the cheque in question has been misused by the complainant with intention to falsely implicate in the present case. He denied the receipt of legal demand notice, but admitted his signatures mentioned therein.
7. After an application under Section 145(2) NI Act made on behalf of the accused was allowed, the complainant was re- called for his cross-examination. He was duly cross examined and discharged.
8. Since no other witness was sought to be examined by the complainant, complainant evidence was closed vide his separate statement dated 07.04.2022.
9. Statement of accused under Section 313 read with Section 281 Cr.P.C was recorded on 02.05.2022 whereby the entire incriminating evidence was put to him. At this stage, the accused primarily maintained his plea of defence raised at the stage of framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. He admitted his signatures on the cheque in question and denied any other particulars therein. He stated that he had not handed over the cheque in question to the complainant, however, it was given to Mr Gulati, Branch Manager of Punjab & Sind Bank. He further stated that he had given Digitally CC No.46997/2016 signed by POONAM Page 4 of 18 POONAM SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.06 17:26:56 +0530 three cheques to him and the cheque in question has been misused by the complainant and the Branch Manager. He denied the receipt of legal demand notice and denied his address mentioned therein. He further stated that he had taken Rs. 15 Lacs to the complainant and the same has been returned to the complainant. He denied his liability towards the complainant. He further stated that it is a false case against him.
10.Since the accused chose to lead defence evidence, the matter was adjourned for filing of application under Section 315 Cr.P.C and list of defence witnesses, if any.
EVIDENCE LED BY THE COMPLAINANT
11.In his support, the complainant examined himself on affidavit being Ex.CW1/1 and placed on record certain documents i.e. statement of account from 01.04.2009 to 07.04.2015 being Ex. CW1/A, ledger account of the complainant being Ex. CW1/B, cheque in question being Ex.CW1/C, bank return memo dated 30.03.2015 being Ex.CW1/D, legal demand notice dated 08.04.2015 being Ex.CW1/E, original postal receipt along with tracking reports being Ex.CW1/F and returned envelopes being Ex.CW1/G.
12.During his cross-examination the accused has produced certificate U/s 65-B Indian Evidence Act i.e. Ex.CW1/DX1, copy of document issued by Punjab & Sind Bank and copy of certificate of importer-exporter code (IEC) i.e. Mark CW1/DX2 and copy of ITRs i.e. Mark CW1/DX3.
EVIDENCE LED BY THE ACCUSED Digitally signed by CC No.46997/2016 POONAM POONAM SINGH Page 5 of 18 SINGH Date:
2025.06.06 17:27:16 +0530
13.At the defence evidence stage, the accused examined Sh Saurabh Soni, Officer Scale, IP & Sindh Bank as DW1 who has brought his authority letter, cheque leafs status, accounts statement of the accused and complainant and certificate U/s 2A (a) of Bankers Book Evidence Act, 1891 i.e. Ex.DW1/1 (Colly). The witness stated that the current account of the accused was opened on 16.10.2003 and there were three account holders i.e. Tarunpal Singh, Inderpal Singh and Parminder Kaur. He further stated that there were 9 cheques books issued for abovesaid account holder and the cheque book no. 446601 was issued on 17.01.2008.
He admitted that cheque bearing no. 446668 was never presented for encashment. After seeing the bank return memo dated 30.03.2015, the witness admitted that there is no sign on the same also. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the complainant and discharged.
14.Accused has also examined himself and deposed as DW-2. Accused has also produced his aadhar card i.e. Ex.DW2 (OSR). He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the complainant and discharged. During his cross- examination, DW1 was confronted with affidavit dated14.03.2016 and the witness has identified his signatures at points A and B i.e. Ex.DX1.
15.Since no further witness was sought to be examined by the accused in his defense, DE was closed vide his separate statement dated 22.01.2025.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
16.Final arguments were advanced on behalf of both the parties on 09.05.2025. Written submissions were filed on behalf of both the parties.
Digitally signed by POONAM POONAM SINGH CC No.46997/2016 SINGH Date: 2025.06.06 Page 6 of 18 17:27:26 +0530
17.Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant has advanced a short-term friendly loan for an amount of Rs.15 lakhs by way of a bank transfer at interest of 3% per month which was to be repaid within 3 months. That the accused failed to make the payment for quite some time and subsequently, the accused paid an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs which was adjusted by the complainant towards the interest due and a part towards principal amount. It is further argued that subsequently and amount of approximately 33 lakhs became due which was later settled between the parties at an amount of Rs. 30 Lakhs. It is further the case of the complainant that the cheque in question was issued by the accused to discharge the aforementioned liability.
18.Ld. Counsel for the complainant has further argued that the accused has already admitted his signatures on the cheque in question and hence presumption of the cheque in question having been issued in discharge of debt or other liability arises in favor of the complainant in terms of Section 118(a) read with Section 139 of NI Act. He further argued that the documentary evidence placed on record by the complainant to the fact that the complainant received no payment within 15 days of the service of the legal demand notice coupled with the admission of the accused, duly proves all the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 NI Act. He thus submitted that since all the ingredients laid down under Section 138 NI Act are fulfilled, the accused should be convicted.
19. It is argued on behalf of the accused that his defense is three-fold. Firstly, that he has not received the legal CC No.46997/2016 Digitally signed by POONAM Page 7 of 18 POONAM SINGH Date:
SINGH 2025.06.06 17:27:32 +0530 demand notice. Secondly, that the cheque in question was never presented for encashment and the return memo is not genuine. Thirdly, that accused owed no legally enforceable debt or liability towards the complainant to the tune of the cheque amount as the cheque was issued as a blank signed security cheque which has been misused by the complainant. It is further argued on behalf of the accused that the complainant's story does not stand on its own legs as the complainant has failed to prove the fact as to how the alleged amount of Rs. 30 lakhs became due to the complainant by the accused. It is further argued on behalf of the accused that since all the ingredients of an offence under Section 138 NI Act are not fulfilled, the present complaint shall be dismissed.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION
20.The following points of determination arise in the present case:
1. Whether the complainant has been successful in raising the presumptions under Section 118 read with Section 139 of NI Act.
2. If yes, whether the accused has been successful in raising a probable defense.
THE LAW APPLICABLE
21.Before delving into the facts of the present case, it is relevant to discuss the law applicable to the present proceedings. To bring home a liability under Section 138 of the NI Act, following elements must spring out from the averments in the complaint and the evidence adduced by the complainant, which are:
"(a) The accused issued a cheque on an account Digitally signed CC No.46997/2016 by POONAM POONAM SINGH Page 8 of 18 SINGH Date:
2025.06.06 17:27:39 +0530 maintained by him with a bank.
(b) The said cheque has been issued in discharge, in whole or in part, of any legal debt or other liability, which is legally enforceable.
(c) The said cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of three months from the date of cheque or within the period of its validity.
(d) The aforesaid cheque, when presented for encashment, was returned unpaid/dishonored.
(e) The payee of the cheque issued a legal notice of demand to the drawer within 30 days from the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque.
(f) The drawer of the cheque failed to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of aforesaid legal notice of demand."
22.Once the other ingredients mentioned in the foregoing paragraph are established by the complainant, then as soon as the execution of cheque in question is admitted by the accused, a factual base is established to invoke the presumption of cheque having been issued in discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability by virtue of Section 118(a) read with Section 139 of NI Act. This is a reverse onus clause, which means that unless the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed that the cheque in question was drawn by the accused for a consideration and that the complainant had received it in discharge of a debt/ liability from the accused. In the case titled Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that once the accused has admitted the signatures on the cheque in question, then the court is bound to raise presumption under Section 139 NI Act. FINDINGS AND REASONING POINT OF DETERMINATION NO.1 Digitally signed by CC No.46997/2016 POONAM Page 9 of 18 POONAM SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.06 17:27:51 +0530
23. The complainant who deposed as CW-1 has discharged his initial burden on the basis of the documents mentioned hereinbefore. The accused has admitted that the cheque in question was drawn on his account and bears his signature. The reason for dishonor of cheque in question as mentioned in cheque return memo Ex. CW 1/B is "Funds Insufficient". The return memo being stamped and signed by the official of the concerned bank, the presumption of dishonor under section 146, NI Act arises. The accused has disputed the dishonor of the cheque as well as receipt of legal demand notice.
24.With regard to argument of non-receipt of legal demand notice by the accused it is pertinent to note that the accused has admitted his address mentioned on legal demand notice Ex. CW1/C and postal receipts Ex. CW1/D(Colly). Therefore, it emerges that the legal demand notice, being properly addressed and posted by the complainant, as proved by the original postal receipts and tracking reports thereof is presumed to have been delivered to the accused in terms of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the accused has failed to rebut this presumption.
25.Further, it is an admitted fact that payment was not made by the accused within 15 days of the deemed receipt of the legal demand notice. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision cited as C.C. Alavi Haji vs. Palapetty Muhammed & Anr. (2007) 6 SCC 555 that a person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the Court along with the copy of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice as CC No.46997/2016 Page 10 of 18 Digitally signed by POONAM POONAM SINGH Date:
SINGH 2025.06.06 17:28:00 +0530 required under Section 138 NI Act, by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. Thus, the plea of the accused that the legal demand notice was never received by him is not tenable on this ground as well and is accordingly rejected.
26.Further on defense that the complainant has never presented the cheque for encashment, the accused has examined the Bank witness of the complainant bank as DW1. DW1 has deposed that it is correct that cheque no 446668 has never been presented for encashment. He further deposed that there is no signature on the bank return memo which is Ex.CW1/D and that it might be a fabricated document. However, DW1 was shown the back side of the Bank return memo on his cross-examination conducted on 11.01.2024, wherein he stated that the bank return memo does bear the signature of the bank manager as well as the reason for dishonor. The DW1 further deposed that what he meant to depose was that the stamp of the bank on the front of the bank return memo does not bear any signature. The DW1 was further cross-examined by the counsel for the complainant on the procedure of clearing of cheque in the year 2015 in cases of intra bank transaction as was the case in the present matter. The bank witness could not with certainty depose that the cheque was never presented for encashment.
27.Considering the documentary evidence led by the complainant and the admissions of the accused, all the other ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act stand successfully established. Further, since the accused CC No.46997/2016 Digitally signed by POONAM Page 11 of 18 POONAM SINGH Date:
SINGH 2025.06.06 17:28:07 +0530 has admitted his signatures on the cheque in question and the fact of issuance of the same from his account, thus, the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act arise against the accused with respect to the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability in favour of the complainant. Accordingly, the point of determination no. 1 is decided in affirmative.
28.The onus is now upon the accused to rebut the mandatory presumptions under the NI Act by raising a probable defence to show that the cheque in question was not issued in discharge of a debt/ liability.
POINT OF DETERMINATION NO. 229.In order to rebut the mandatory presumptions, the accused has raised a defense that there is no legally enforceable debt or liability to the tune of the amount of the cheque in question against the accused.
30.It is the case of the accused that the complainant has advanced him an interest free friendly loan of an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/-. It is further the case of the accused that he has repaid the entire loan amount by paying Rs. 10,00,000 by way of a bank transaction and Rs. 5 lakhs in cash. It is further the case of the accused that the complainant has misused the security cheque in question by filling in an exaggerated amount.
31.As regards the rebuttal of mandatory presumptions, it is a settled law that the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act cannot be rebutted upon a mere denial but only by leading cogent evidence. Same was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision cited as K.N. Beena Vs. Muniyappan and Another; (2001) 8 SCC 458. Further, Digitally signed CC No.46997/2016 by POONAM POONAM SINGH Page 12 of 18 Date:
SINGH 2025.06.06 17:28:15 +0530 the presumptions may be rebutted by the accused either by leading direct evidence and in exceptional cases, from the case set out by the complainant himself i.e. from the averments in his complaint, in the statutory notice and even the evidence adduced by the complainant during the trial. The burden of proof is to be discharged by the accused on a scale of 'preponderance of probabilities.' Same was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision cited as M/s Kumar Exports Vs. M/s Sharma Carpets; 2009 AIR (SC) 1518.
32.Further with regard to friendly loans advanced in cash as is the case in the present complaint the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Amit Jain vs. Sanjeev Kumar Singh & Anr (Crl.A. 1248/2019) held that -
"The accused often gets away with an acquittal, despite having tendered and even admitting to the cheque, merely because the complainant is unable to produce documents to support the existence of the debt (usually in the form of a friendly loan provided in cash, which does not have any document trail). It would be unwise for the court to not acknowledge that friendly cash loans are provided by parties, sometimes based on small savings of the lender. In these circumstances rather than focussing on the question as to why the accused gave the cheque in the first place (which he or she admits), the complainant is left unhinged for inability to provide any documentation. Often when accused is asked by the court, as to for what purpose they gave the cheque in the first place, a cogent and rational answer is not forthcoming".
Digitally signed by POONAM POONAM CC No.46997/2016 SINGH SINGH Date: Page 13 of 18 2025.06.06 17:28:21 +0530 It was further observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that mostly in cases of friendly loans instead of having the accused prove to the contrary, the accused is acquitted without having led any defence evidence and purely relying upon the inconsistencies in the affirmative proof provided by the complainant. The law and its application, is therefore turned on its head in case of dishonour of cheques pertaining to friendly loans advanced by the complainant.
33.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh, SLP (Crl.) No. 12802 of 2022 dated 9.10.23 held that "At the stage when the courts concluded that the signature had been admitted, the Court ought to have inquired into either of the two questions (depending on the method in which accused has chosen to rebut the presumption): Has the accused led any defense evidence to prove and conclusively establish that there existed no debt/liability at the time of issuance of cheque? In the absence of rebuttal evidence being led the inquiry would entail:
Has the accused proved the nonexistence of debt/liability by a preponderance of probabilities by referring to the 'particular circumstances of the case'?"
34. In the case in hand, it is the complainant's case that he has advanced an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs to the accused at the interest of 3% per month. And subsequently the outstanding due was settled between the parties to be Rs. 30,00,000/- for repayment of which the accused has issued the cheque in question. In order to rebut the Digitally CC No.46997/2016 signed by POONAM Page 14 of 18 POONAM SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.06 17:28:28 +0530 mandatory presumption, the accused in the present case has cross-examined the complainant and has also led defense evidence.
35.The fact that an amount of Rs. 15,00,000 was advanced by the complainant to the accused is not disputed between the parties. What is in dispute is the rate of interest at which the loan was advanced as well as the term for which the loan was advanced. In his cross-examination the complainant has deposed that no written loan agreement was executed between the parties settling the terms of the loan agreement. Further the complainant has also deposed that it is correct that no demand in writing was ever made by the compliant to the accused for repayment of the loan amount. The complainant was also asked to furnish his balance sheet, ITR and statement of profit and loss. The complainant in his cross-examination also deposed that it is correct that none of the above- mentioned documents mention the liability of Rs,30,00,000 or more due from the accused to the complainant. Complainant has also not proved any document to show that the loan was advanced at interest of 3% per month.
36.Further it is the case of the complainant that the actual outstanding liability was approximately Rs. 33,00,000/- which was settled between the parties at an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/-. Again, in his cross-examination the complainant deposed that this settlement was only telephonic and that there is no proof documentary or otherwise to prove that the accused has agreed to pay Rs. 30,00,000/- to the complainant and issued the cheque in Digitally CC No.46997/2016 signed by POONAM Page 15 of 18 POONAM SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.06 17:28:35 +0530 question towards its payment.
37.The only document that the complainant has furnished to prove the liability of Rs. 30,00,000/- is a ledger maintained by the complainant which is Ex. CW1/B. It is pertinent to note that CW1/B does not bear any confirmation or acknowledgment of the accused. Further it is not attested or certified by the CA of the complainant firm. The complainant was deposed on the genuineness of CW1/B by the accused. In his cross-examination held on 22.07.2019 the complainant deposed that it is correct that CW1/B does not mention the details of the person who has maintained the same and that 65 B Indian Evidence Act certificate was also not filed on record. However, on the same day the CW1 filed a certificate under Section 65 B Indian Evidence Act under his name for the fact that he has taken out its printout. The complainant has also deposed with regard to Ex. CW1/B that it is correct that Ex.CW1/B does not bear stamps or signature of any CA or tax consultant and that it was never audited.
38.With regard to evidentiary value of a ledger account it is a settled position of law that even if a statement of accounts contains correct and authentic entries, the same cannot, without independent evidence of their trustworthiness, fix a liability upon the accused. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in CBI Vs. V C Shukla AIR 1998 SC 1406. Hence, in the considered opinion of this court, Ex. CW1/B by itself is not sufficient to establish the liability of the accused in terms of Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as from the perusal of the Ex. CW1/B alone, it cannot be CC No.46997/2016 Digitally signed by Page 16 of 18 POONAM POONAM SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.06.06 17:28:44 +0530 deduced as to how and in what manner the outstanding liability of Rs. 30,00,000/- became due against the accused.
39.Further the complainant has deposed that the accused was introduced to the complainant by Mr. Gulati, the bank manager of Punjab and Sind Bank, Cannaught Place and the loan was advanced to the accused at the insistence of another manager Mr. Bhatia. However it is pertinent to note that the complainant has failed to examine any of the aforementioned persons as his witness to prove the terms of the agreement.
40.It is imperative to understand that in order to pronounce a conviction in a criminal case, the accused 'must be' guilty and not merely 'may be' guilty. For an accused to be guilty, guilt should not be based on mere surmises and conjectures but it should be based on cogent evidence. In the present case, the accused has clearly presented a defense that is more probable than the complainant's story and consequently, the benefit of doubt must go to him.
41.In view of the foregoing discussion, this court has no hesitation to hold that the liability of the accused as on the date of the presentation of the cheque in question is not established to the tune of the amount mentioned therein. Hence, this court has arrived at an irresistible conclusion that the accused has been able to prove the non-existence of liability by preponderance of probabilities by referring to particular circumstances of the case. Complainant on the other hand has utterly failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt qua the existence of liability of the accused to the tune of amount of the cheque in question.
Digitally
signed by
CC No.46997/2016 POONAM
POONAM
SINGH
Page 17 of 18
SINGH Date:
2025.06.06
17:28:51
+0530
42.The onus has now shifted back upon the complainant to prove the second ingredient of the offence under Section 138 NI Act, regarding the issuance of the cheque in question for any legal debt or other liability equivalent to the amount mentioned therein. The complainant has not taken any steps thereafter to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt; this court has fairly arrived at the conclusion that the complainant's case does not stand on its own legs. Accordingly point of determination no.2 is decided in affirmative.
FINAL ORDER
43.In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court finds the accused Tarun Pal Singh Oberoi, S/o Lt. Sardar Ajit Singh not guilty of the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and acquits him accordingly.
44.This judgment contains 18 pages and each page has been signed by the Presiding Officer.
Digitally signed by POONAM POONAM SINGH Announced in open SINGH Date: 2025.06.06 Court on 06th June, 2025 17:29:00 +0530 (POONAM SINGH) JMFC(N.I.Act)-04/West, THC/Delhi/06.06.2025 CC No.46997/2016 Page 18 of 18