Delhi District Court
B.R. Gandhi vs . Shenoy on 20 July, 2012
B.R. Gandhi Vs. Shenoy CC No.677/10 20.07.2012
Present: None.
The Process Server absent despite service.
Show Cause Notice be issued against him for 30.08.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.07.2012 M/s ITJ Retails Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gurmeet Singh CC No.4519/10 20.07.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Summons unserved.
Summons be only issued if complainant files any other fresh address and is desirous of assisting the Process Server.
List on 26.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.07.2012 Jasbir Singh Vs. Ashwani Saxena CC No.4821/10 20.07.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused with proxy counsel.
Instead of depositing the cost, accused has moved an application for waiver of cost on the ground that non appearance of ld. counsel for the accused was not intentional as he was busy in other court.
In view of the last order and the conduct of the accused I do not find any ground for waiver of cost. The application is, therefore, dismissed.
Accused has also also moved an application for recall of witness in defence. It appears that no such application was ever filed by the accused. And on the last date, again an opportunity was given to examine the accused himself in defence and it was noted that no further opportunity could be given for summoning of any other witness.
In the present application, no exceptional circumstances have been shown, rather no reason has been mentioned. Such frivolous applications are required to be dismissed at the threshold. The application is dismissed.
Ld. Proxy counsel is, however, again seeking passover for examine the accused in defence. Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.07.2012 At 01.27 p.m. Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused with proxy counsel.
Accused examined in Chief.
Cross-examination deferred at request of ld. counsel for the Complainant as he is not available after lunch.
Complainant is also directed to appear in person. List on 03.08.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.07.2012 M/s Kanchan Addchem Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Lakhani India Ltd. & Anr.
CC No.1714/12
20.07.2012
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused absent.
Regular summons not received back. However, complainant has filed Internet Generated Tracking Slip in respect of summons issued to the accused No.2 by speed post.
In such circumstances, summons may be declared to be served U/s 144(2) NI Act.
A Bailable Warrant in the sum of Rs.1 lac be issued against the accused No.2 for 06.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.07.2012 M/s Prakash Chand Jain & Sons Vs. Biju Abraham CC No.1193/10 20.07.2012 Present: Proxy counsel for the complainant.
He is seeking one more opportunity to comply with the last order.
He submits that he has filed his Vakalatnama.
Last opportunity.
Previous order be complied with for 30.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.07.2012 Sandeep Gupta Vs. Ms. Manita Aggarwal & Anr.
CC No.1299/10
20.07.2012
Present: Complainant in person.
Husband of the accused.
Complainant submits that Husband of the accused has already made a payment of Rs. 75,000/- to him out of the court.
List for further payments on 23.12.2012 as per Mediation Agreement.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.07.2012 Varun Moolchandani Vs. Jishan Dev Burmen CC No.3808/10 20.07.2012 Present: Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Accused absent.
NBW unexecuted.
A Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. be issued against the accused for 05.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.07.2012 Vikas Jain Vs. Mohd. Wasim CC No.6106/11 20.07.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Production Warrant issued against the accused has not been received back. Be awaited.
A Show Cause Notice be issued to the concerned Jail Supdt. As to why necessary action be not taken against him.
Assistant Ahlmad has made a report that due to shortage of time, earlier process could not be issued and that the same is regretted.
I consider that office to reform itself otherwise court would be constrained to take stern action.
Lat a fresh Production Warrant be issued against the accused for 24.07.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
20.07.2012
At this stage,
Present: Accused produced from JC.
Earlier direction recalled.
Accused does not have any Surety as such he be taken into custody in this case also and be produced on the date fixed i.e. 24.07.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.07.2012 Ajay Aggarwal Vs. Deepak Jaitly CC No.6469/12 20.07.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
There is no compliance of the last order.
Be complied with for 30.10.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.07.2012 Sudhir Kumar Jain Vs. Parveen Kumar Gadodia CC No.5988/11 20.07.2012 Present: Complainant in person.
Accused in person.
Accused is seeking ten minutes passover.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
20.07.2012
At 12.50 p.m.
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused with counsel.
Complainant further cross-examined.
Cross-examination deferred.
Complainant submits that he will produce earlier Return Memos in respect of all the other cheques on the next date.
List on 14.08.2012.
At request of ld. counsels, dated is changed to 30.08.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.07.2012 Katt Special Machines Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Giri CC No.4859/10 20.07.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with proxy counsel.
Accused absent.
Matter is listed for final arguments.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.07.2012 At 02.40 p.m. Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused with proxy counsel.
Matter is listed for final arguments. However, ld. proxy counsel for the accused is seeking an adjournment on the ground that relative of the ld. main counsel has expired today and ld. main counsel had to go to Punjab.
Only one opportunity is given.
List on 28.07.2012 after lunch.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.07.2012 M/s SU-Kam Power Systems Ltd. Vs. M/s Dev Technologies Systesms & Anr.
CC No.6639/1220.07.2012 Present: Proxy counsel for the complainant.
An exemption application has been filed on behalf of AR on the ground that he has gone to Gurgaon, Haryana.
Ld. Proxy counsel submits that he has received the Proof of Delivery and seeks time.
List on 21.08.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.07.2012 Balaji Chemicals Corporation Vs. M/s Pragati Hightech Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
CC No.6663/1220.07.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
It appears that affidavit was tendered in evidence before the Ld. Transferrer Court.
I have heard the ld. counsel. There is sufficient material against the accused for offence U/s 138 NI Act.
Consequently, summons be issued against the accused for 06.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.07.2012 Yogesh Jaidka Vs. Dinesh Kapoor CC No.1275/10 20.07.2012 Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
Accused has today made Rs.30,000/- to the complainant.
List on 13.08.2012 at request for further payment.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.07.2012 M.I. Roshan Vs. Prem Singh Bhatia CC No.80/10 20.07.2012 Present: Complainant with proxy counsel.
Accused in person.
Accused has paid Rs.26,500/- as fourth installment.
List on 20.09.2012 for further payment.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.07.2012 Balaji Chemicals Corporation Vs. M/s Pragati Hightech Products Ltd. & Anr.
CC No.6472/12
20.07.2012
Present: None.
Notice still not received back.
Let the same be issued afresh through all available modes for 17.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.07.2012 Amit Aggaral (accused) CC No.4608/10, 4595/10, 680/10 & 660/10 20.07.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused with counsel.
These are four cases against the accused.
In one case, Complainant Rajesh Kumar is also present.
All the four matters are listed for payments in terms of Mediation Agreement. However, accused is seeking time to make the payment.
Last opportunity is given to the accused failing which matter shall be tried in its regular way.
List on 21.08.2012.
At request of ld. counsel for the accused date is changed to 27.08.2012 as he submits that accused will also pay the second installment on that day.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.07.2012 Sudhir Kumar Jain Vs. Parveen Kumar Gadodia CC No.5988/11 20.07.2012 Statement of CW1 Sudhir Kumar Jain (recalled for further cross-examination). On S.A. It is wrong to suggest that I had not initiated any proceedings against the accused to recover the payment of the Bill Exh.CW1/2 for Rs.1,77,424/-. I have not filed any other recovery suit against the accused for the amount of Rs.1,77,424/-. It is wrong to suggest that I have not initiated any recovery suit against the accused since I had already received the same amount in cash from the accused. It is correct that the document Exh.CW1/8 was not signed by me, by my Chartered Accountant. (Vol. As it is the computer generated document and the signature for the same not required). There are no such documents on record to show that the accused has acknowledged the alleged amount. (Vol. Accused had said that he will sign the document after consultation with his uncle and after that he had not signed the same and he had revalidated the cheques in question). I had gone to accused to obtain the signature on the Balance Confirmation/ Statement of Account in every ending year i.e. after 31st March. I visited first time on 31.03.2008 at the shop of the accused. I cannot tell the exact date and time when I visited the shop of the accused. I visited the shop of accused on every 15 days for getting the signature on Balance Confirmation/Statement of Account. (Vol. I also visited for getting balance payment of the cheques in question). The Cheque Exh.CW1/11 was against the payment of Bill Exh.CW1/3 dated 28.11.2009. The Bill Exh.CW1/3 was in my handwriting. The words mentioned as "Ch No. dated 08.12.2009 and 10 days" is in my handwriting at Mark-A. The word "paid" at Mark-B on document Exh.CW1/3 is in the handwriting of the accused. I cannot tell the exact date when the Cheque Exh.CW1/11 was handed over to me by the accused but it was prior to 28.12.2009. The Cheque Exh.CW1/11 was not presented on 28.12.2009 as per the direction of the accused. It is wrong to suggest that the same was not presented on 28.12.2009 for encashment because I had received the alleged amount in cash from the accused. It is wrong to suggest that I withheld the cheque Exh.CW1/11 without consideration. It is wrong to suggest that the accused had asked me number of times to return the said cheque. First time I presented the said cheque in the bank on 05.03.2011. The date i.e. 20/28.09.2010 was altered on the cheque Exh.CW1/11 by the accused with an initial on it. It is wrong to suggest that the cutting of the date i.e. 20/28.09.2010 was not done by the accused. The said date was altered between 10th to 20th September 2010. I cannot tell the exact place where the said date was changed. I cannot tell whether any person was present or not at that time. It is wrong to suggest that no date has been changed/altered by the accused. Again the said cheque was not presented as per the instructions of the accused. I cannot tell whether the date on Exh.CW1/11 i.e. 24.01.2011 was altered by the accused himself or his employee because I have not seen that. It is wrong to suggest that the date i.e. 24.01.2011 on Exh.CW1/11 was altered by me/representative/employee. I have not filed the Return Memo regarding dishnour of the cheque Exh.CW1/11 on 05.03.2011 as the same was not necessary to file on record. (Vol. The same was not filed on record as the accused told me that the same is wrongly issued by the bank and I was asked to represent the same). I cannot say whether the same Return Memo is available with me or not.
At this stage, Complainant from his own file filed the Return Memo issued by the bank which is now Exh.CW1/D1.
Cross-examination deferred.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.07.2012 Jasbir Singh Vs. Ashwani Saxena CC No.4821/10 20.07.2012 Statement of DW1 Ashwani Saxena, S/o Sh. A.S. Saxena, aged about 37 years, R/o B-171, Shalimar Garden, Extn.II, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, UP (recalled for examination in chief). On S.A. The Complainant Jasbir Singh was having Savings Account in Indian Overseas Bank, Pusha Road, Delhi-110005 by two different names, namely, Jasbir Singh and Surender Pal Singh in year 2000. I said to the Complainant the I am in need of some money then Complainant had arranged me Rs.90,000/- through a cheque of Punjab and Sind Bank, Dev Nagar, Delhi out of which I had given Rs.40,000/- to the Complainant and, therefore, I received only Rs.50,000/- from the Complainant. Again after three months I had asked for Rs.1 lac from the Complainant and Complainant assured me to arrange the said money of Rs.1 lac. Then Complainant asked me that we are doing finance work with my brother jointly and asked for a cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- from me as security and I had given the same to the complainant without date. The Complainant had not provided me the above said some of Rs.1 lac after the said security cheque. The Complainant kept on assuring me that he will arrange money for me but he never arranged the same Rs.1 lac. Then I requested to the Complainant to return my security cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- and should take his cheque of Rs.50,000/-. Then Complainant said to me that the Cheque of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been misplaced. After that I requested the Complainant to issue me a receipt in writing in respect of misplacing of that said cheque of Rs.1,50,000/-. The Complainant had never issued me any such receipt with respect to misplacing of the said cheque of Rs.1,50,000/-. Then I started returning the loan amount of Rs.50,000/- and I paid a sum of Rs.13,000/- to the Complainant. Complainant has also issued me a receipt in this respect which is Exh.CW2/D1 and the receipt Exh.CW2/D1 has been issued by the complainant after persuading him a lot. At last, I had paid the total amount of Rs.72,000/- in cash to the Complainant. For sometime after receving the said amount of Rs.72,000/-, the Complainant kept mum. All of a sudden after sometime, Complainant found the misplaced cheques of Rs.1,50,000/- and the same have been presented for encashment. Thereafter, Complainant asked me that your cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- has been dishonoured by the banker so you can pay upto Rs.2 to 2.50 lacs otherwise you will have to pay Rs.3 lacs in the court after suing against you. Thereafter, Complainant sent me a legal demand notice which I accordingly replied. The reply is Exh.CW2/D2. XXXXX by Mr. J.L. Khurana, Ld. Counsel for the Complainant.
Cross-examination deferred at request of ld. counsel for the complainant. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.07.2012 Anil Kumar Vs. Vimal Kumar & Anr.
CC No.1334/1020.07.2012 File taken up on application for cancellation of NBW on behalf of accused Vimal Kumar.
Present: Accused Vimal Kumar with counsel.
Accused submits that his uncle expired and he had go to UP from where returned on 13.07.2012.
He further submits that inadvertently he could not inform his counsel.
Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that accused persons deposited a total cost of Rs. 6,000/- with the DLSA. Receipt taken on record.
In the circumstances, NBW is cancelled with a strict warning to the accused.
List on date fixed i.e. on 25.08.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.07.2012 Ms. Manju Vs. Ms. Sheela Devi CC No.6281/11 20.07.2012 File taken up on an application for cancellation of NBW.
Present: Accused with counsel.
It, however, appears that there is no direction for issuance of NBW.
The application is, therefore, dismissed.
Accused to appear on the date fixed i.e. 22.08.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.07.2012