Delhi District Court
United Cooperative (U) T & C Society Ltd. vs . Jagbir Singh Chaudhary on 26 April, 2012
United Cooperative (U) T & C Society Ltd. Vs. Jagbir Singh Chaudhary C.C.No.4076/10 26.04.2012
Present: None.
Bailable Warrant unexecuted. However, complainant himself is not appearing for the last several dates.
Be awaited for the complainant.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 At 03.10 p.m. Present: None.
Complaint dismissed for non appearance of the complainant.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 Gurpreet Singh Vs. G.P. Suman C.C.No.4719/10 26.04.2012 Present: None.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 At 03.10 p.m. Present: None.
Complaint dismissed for non appearance of the complainant.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 M/s Unique Farm Aids (P) Ltd. Vs. Ronni Patel C.C.No.4606/10 26.04.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused absent.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 At 02.45 p.m. Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused absent.
A Non Bailable Warrant be issued against him.
A Notice to Surety be also issued for 07.07.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 Amit Lohani Vs. Ashish Kakkar C.C.No.6471/A 26.04.2012 Present: None.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 At 02.35 p.m. Present: Counsel for the complainant.
He prayed for one more opportunity on the ground that complainant is not present.
Matter is at the stage of consideration.
List on 30.04.2012.
At request of the ld. counsel, date is changed to 05.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 Anil Kumar Vs. Vikas Jaswal C.C.No.2097/10 26.04.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
It appears that for 20.09.2011 summons was served by way of affixation and, therefore, the said process server was called. However, the office issued notice to the process server who made the report on process for 20.10.2011. As such the process server Mukesh Kumar is discharged being not required.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant submits that property now belongs to the father of the accused and the accused is still residing with his father.
As such fresh summons be issued against the accused with a clear condition that complainant shall assist the process server in locating/tracing the accused and serving the summons.
List on 31.08.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 M/s Arihant Industries Vs. M/s Yadav Construction Co. Engineer & Co.
C.C.No.508/10
26.04.2012
Present: AR of the complainant.
It appears that no one was appearing on behalf of the complainant and today only on service of notice AR appeared.
Only one opportunity is given to the complainant to comply with the summoning order failing which the complaint shall be dismissed.
Summons be issued to the accused for 30.08.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 Ashish Kumar Vs. Pushpa Devi C.C.No.6380/11 26.04.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
They seek time to file fresh address of the accused.
Let summons be issued only thereafter.
List on 31.08.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 M/s Dangson Hotel and Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. A.S. Chadha C.C.No.2418/10 26.04.2012 Present: None.
Notice not received back.
Notice to the ld. counsel for the complainant be issued afresh for 21.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 Anoop Khandelwal Vs. Dhruv Goel C.C.No.5753/11 & 5755/11 26.04.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Counsel for the accused.
These are two matters.
Matters settled.
Payment completed.
Statement of ld. counsel for the complainant recorded.
Matter stands compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
Delayed settlement cost Rs.24,000/- combined for both the cases is imposed upon the accused to be deposited with DLSA within 10 days.
List on 10.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 Jagjit Publishing Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Aapka Faisla Parkashan Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
C.C.No.6514/1226.04.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Counsel for accused.
Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that accused Suresh Thakur i.e. the Chairman of the accused company is also the authorized signatory of the instant cheque.
An exemption application has been filed on behalf of the accused on the ground that he is not well.
Simply a bald averment has been made to the application without any details or supporting proof.
I consider that such exemption application cannot be allowed.
Dismissed.
Accused is directed to appear in person on the next date.
Accused to further ready to take notice to disclose his defence.
List on 20.07.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 Katt Special Machines Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Fatima Khanam & Anr.
C.C.No.4212/10
26.04.2012
Present: None for the complainant.
Ld. Counsel for the accused.
He had filed an exemption application on the ground that accused persons have to look after their son who is ill.
Matter is listed for reply and arguments on application moved U/s 145(2) NI Act.
Complainant himself is not present.
One more opportunity to all the concerned.
List on 02.07.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 Om Prakash Verma Vs. Harbans Singh C.C.No.3877/10 26.04.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused absent.
There is no report in respect of compliance of the last order whereas ld. counsel submits that he has already filed the process fee.
Let the Ahlmad to check and report.
Previous order be also complied with for 05.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 Padmini Impex (P) Ltd. Vs. Novkar Collections C.C.No.4333/10 26.04.2012 Present: AR of the complainant.
NBW unexecuted.
In view of the circumstances, Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. be issued against the accused for 26.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 M/s Pooja Dairy Vs. Shiv Bahadur & Anr.
C.C.No.6426/11
26.04.2012
Present: None.
Summons unserved.
Summons sent by post also unserved.
Fresh summons be issued only after filing of fresh address of the accused.
List on 05.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 M/s Shanti Kiran (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gulshan Chug C.C.No.3142/10 26.04.2012 Present: None.
Bailable Warrant received back with a report already left the address.
It appears that on the last occasion, similar report was received and ld. counsel for the complainant wanted to file fresh address but never filed the same.
Adjourned for appearance of complainant so that he can assist.
List on 07.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 M/s Shristi Fashion Vs. M/s Aarti Textile & Ors.
C.C.No.5683/11 & 5654/1126.04.2012 Present: AR of the complainant.
These are two connected matters.
Bailable Warrant unexecuted.
Complainant is seeking some more time to file fresh address of the accused. Let Bailable Warrant be only issued thereafter.
List on 04.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 Thakar Chemicals Ltd. Vs. M/s Jagmeet Singh & Company & Anr.
C.C.No.5489/10
26.04.2012
Present: AR of the complainant.
There is no report in respect of the compliance of the order dated 31.03.2012.
Ahlmad to explain.
Let Process server be called through SHO.
SHO to also explain his cause in respect of the notice issued to concerned process server which has not been received back.
List on 30.04.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 Inderjit Singh Vs. Ms. Renu Kapoor C.C.No.1676/10 26.04.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Counsel for the accused.
Ld. Counsel for the accused has filed his Vakalatnama.
He has also filed an exemption application on behalf of the accused on the ground that accused has gone to AIIMS, Delhi for the treatment of her husband.
It appears that matter is listed for arguments on an application under Section-145(2) NI Act.
A bare perusal of the file shows that accused is unnecessary and deliberately delaying the matter.
Ld. Counsel for the accused is not ready to advance arguments.
Matter be adjourned subject to a further adjournment cost of Rs.5,000/- in view of the delaying tactics adopted by the accused in the present matter.
Out of the cost Rs.2,000/- to be paid to the complainant.
Both the costs to be deposited within five days from today.
Adjourned to 21.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 Rajesh Kumar Chaurasia Vs. M/s Satnam Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
C.C.No.6443/1126.04.2012 Present: Complainant with proxy counsel.
Counsel for the accused.
Matter settled in the Mediation Cell on 27.03.2012.
Ld. Counsel for the accused has handed over a cheque of Rs.90,000/- to the complainant as first installment.
List on 24.05.2012 for further installment at request of the parties.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 Aman Nayar Vs. Mohit Wadhwa C.C.No.5748/1 26.04.2012 Present: Complainant in person.
Father of the Accused with counsel.
An exemption application has been filed on behalf of the accused on the ground that he is out of Delhi.
An application for cancellation of NBW has also been filed on the ground that they have settled the matter.
NBW is stayed.
At request of the parties, matter be sent to Mediation Cell today itself after lunch.
Regular date is 28.04.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 Aman Nayar Vs. Mohit Wadhwa File taken up as per Mediation agreement.
C.C.No.5748/126.04.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Father of the Accused with counsel.
Matter settled in the Mediation Cell.
Father of the accused has paid Rs.1,30,000/- in cash to the complainant and also handed over a cheque of Rs.1,30,000/- to the complainant in terms of Mediation Agreement.
List for last and final installment on 04.07.2012.
Earlier date 28.04.2012 is cancelled.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 A.H.R. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Surender Kumar C.C.No.2835/10 26.04.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused in person.
At their request, matter be sent to Mediation Cell today after lunch.
Regular date is 28.04.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 Dilip Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Dr. Rajender Singh C.C.No.5409/11 26.04.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused with counsel.
An exemption application has been filed on behalf of the complainant on the ground that he has gone to attend last rites of his relative.
An application for waiver of cost has been filed by the accused.
Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that he was busy in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and, therefore, could not appear on the last date.
Parties submit that they want to settle the matter.
At their request, file be sent to Mediation Cell today after lunch.
Regular date is 30.04.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 Satish Sharma Vs. M/s Shanti Traders C.C.No.2630/10 26.04.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused with counsel.
Matter is listed for final arguments, however, ld. counsel for the accused is again not ready to advance arguments.
It appears that on 12.04.2012, matter was adjourned for final arguments, however, even on 25.04.2012 no arguments were advanced and the ld. proxy counsel for the accused had sought time for want of ld. main counsel.
Today, ld. main counsel for the accused is available but does not want to advance arguments.
I consider that court cannot compel any person to do anything. It is the sole prerogative of the litigants to advance arguments or not.
In the circumstances, I have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant.
Ld. Counsel for the accused will be at liberty to file arguments, if any.
Put up for pronouncement of judgment on 07.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 Jasbir Singh Vs. Jagdish Babu C.C.No.4955/10 26.04.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused with counsel.
At request of parties, matter be sent to Mediation Cell today after lunch.
Regular date is 27.04.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 Pradeep Puri Vs. Gulshan Rai Chadda C.C.No.6140/11 26.04.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused with counsel.
Ld. Counsel for the accused has filed his Vakalatnama.
Complainant cross-examined in part.
Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that he is not available after lunch. As such further cross-examination is deferred.
List on 02.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 Ms. Renu Puri Vs. Gulshan Rai Chadda C.C.No.4028/10 26.04.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused with counsel.
Ld. Counsel for the accused has filed his Vakalatnama.
Cost paid by the accused to the complainant.
In CC No.6140/11, complainant has been cross-examined in part till the lunch time.
Ld. Counsel for the accused is not available after lunch.
As such adjourned for cross-examination on 28.04.2012 at 02.30 p.m. (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 Deep Puri Vs. Gulshan Rai Chadda C.C.No.4027/10 26.04.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused with counsel.
Ld. Counsel for the accused has filed his Vakalatnama.
In CC No.6140/11, complainant has been cross-examined in part till the lunch time.
Ld. Counsel for the accused is not available after lunch.
As such adjourned for cross-examination on 02.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 Ms. Geeta Puri Vs. Gulshan Rai Chadda C.C.No.6139/11 26.04.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused with counsel.
Ld. Counsel for the accused has filed his Vakalatnama.
In CC No.6140/11, complainant has been cross-examined in part till the lunch time.
Ld. Counsel for the accused is not available after lunch.
As such adjourned for cross-examination on 02.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 H.S. Traders Vs. M/s Dayal Sons & Anr.
C.C.No.2306/10
26.04.2012
Present: None for the complainant.
Counsel for the accused.
Matter is listed for pronouncement of judgment, however, an exemption application has been moved on behalf of the accused on the ground that today brother in law of the accused has expired.
Adjourned to 15.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 Ms. Taranjeet Kaur Suri Vs. Surinder Singh & Anr.
File taken up on an application moved by the Surety for setting aside the order dated 20.04.2012.
C.C.No.2549/10
26.04.2012
Present: Surety in person.
It appears that there is no such order dated 20.04.2012 as there was no date of listing of this file on 20.04.2012. However, it appears that the order is dated 23.04.2012.
I consider that order cannot be set aside by the same court. Consequently, the application is dismissed.
Today, accused is also present with his counsel.
He filed an application for cancellation of NBW and dropping of proceedings U/s 82/83 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the accused met with a road accident and also has undergone a Heart Surgery.
Accused submits that he was in Delhi during the entire period of March and April 2012.
It appears that on the last date NBW was unexecuted for the reason accused had gone to Ludhiana, Punjab.
Ld. Counsel for the accused is seriously disputing the report of police officials.
Let HC Sunil Kumar from the concerned police station be called. Till then the direction regarding issuance of process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. is stayed.
Further opportunity is given to the Surety to furnish the bond amount. Accused wants to pay the amount to the complainant.
At request, a notice be also issued to the complainant.
List on 17.05.2012 at specific request of ld. counsel.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 Sanjay Sharma Vs. Narender Singh Tanwar File taken up on an application moved by the accused for cancellation of NBW.
C.C.No.2557/10
26.04.2012
Present: Accused with counsel.
The ground taken by the accused is that he was suffering from Fever and, therefore, could not appear on the date fixed.
A medical certificate dated 16.04.2012 has been filed which is showing the rest from 07.04.2012 to 13.04.2012.
It appears that medical certificate has been obtained by the accused only to justify his non appearance. Otherwise he should have filed medical papers showing his treatment from 07.04.2012.
Ld. Counsel for the accused seeks time to file sufficient medical documents.
List on date fixed i.e. 10.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 M/s JK Tyre & Industries Ltd. Vs. Sunil Karmkar Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
C.C.No. 26.04.2012 Present: Ld. Counsel for the Complainant.
At request, adjourned to 21.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 Ayurvedant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Saxena C.C.No.2358/10 26.04.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused with proxy counsel.
Offence is bailable one and this is the first appearance of the accused. Therefore, accused is admitted on bail subject to his furnishing bail bond and surety bond to the tune of Rs.5,000/-.
At request of ld. proxy counsel, personal bond is accepted for two days.
Matter is very old.
List on 11.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 Dinesh Kumar Vs. Rajesh C.C.No.3968/10 26.04.2012 Present: Complainant with proxy counsel.
Accused with proxy counsel.
Complainant has filed an application for attachment of salary of accused on the ground that accused has not paid any amount despite settlement in the Mediation Cell.
I consider that no such application can be maintained by the complainant.
Ld. proxy counsel for the complainant at this stage withdraws the application. Dismissed as withdrawn.
Matter is listed for final arguments.
At request of ld. proxy counsel for the complainant, be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 At 03.15 p.m. Present : Complainant with proxy counsel.
Accused with proxy counsel.
Instead of coming with the ld. main counsel, the complainant came with one more proxy counsel.
Both the sides are not inclined to advance arguments.
I consider that litigants should not be allowed to take passover and in the end to take adjournment without any fruitful proceedings.
Todays adjournment cost Rs.2,000/- is imposed upon both the sides to be deposited with the DLSA within five days.
List for 03.05.2012 for final arguments.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 M/s Sekhawati Capital Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mohammad Ansar & Anr.
C.C.No.4399/1026.04.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel Sh. Umesh Tyagi.
Summons issued to the accused received back unserved.
However, AR submits that he wants to withdraw the complaint as the accused has expired.
Statement of AR recorded.
Complaint is dismissed as withdrawn.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 Bishamber Singh Vs. Chander Shekhar Pandey C.C.No.4858/10 26.04.2012 Present: Proxy counsel for the complainant.
Accused with counsel.
Bank witness Ram Kishan is present, however, seeks time to bring all the relevant documents. Discharged unexamined. Witness is bound down for the next date.
An exemption application has been filed on behalf of the complainant on the ground that he is a Senior Citizen.
There is no report in respect of summoning of other witness. Let she be summoned.
List on 30.05.2012.
At request of the parties, date is changed to 04.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 Alpha Colour Labs Vs. Harish Grover C.C.No.55/10 26.04.2012 Present: Both the parties.
This is a Parcha Yaddast as the file is before the Ld. Revisional Court.
At request of the parties, list on 02.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 Anoop Khandelwal Vs. Dhruv Goel C.C.No.5753/11 26.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Dinesh Rohilla, Ld. Counsel for the complainant. Without oath.
I, the above named counsel for the complainant do hereby state that I have instructions from the complainant to withdraw the present complaint case since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. Complainant has no further grievance against the accused. Accused has made the settled amount to the complainant. Therefore, the matter may be allowed to be treated as compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 Anoop Khandelwal Vs. Dhruv Goel C.C.No.5755/11 26.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Dinesh Rohilla, Ld. Counsel for the complainant. Without oath.
I, the above named counsel for the complainant do hereby state that I have instructions from the complainant to withdraw the present complaint case since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. Complainant has no further grievance against the accused. Accused has made the settled amount to the complainant. Therefore, the matter may be allowed to be treated as compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 Ms. Meera Hemant Vs. Ms. Rashmi Singh C.C.No.6585/12 26.04.2012 Statement of Ms. Meera Hemant, complainant. On S.A. I, the above named complainant do hereby tender my evidence by way of affidavit Exh.CW1/G which bears my signatures at Point A and Point B. I rely upon the documents Exh.CW1/A to Exh.CW1/E. I hereby close my evidence. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 M/s Aditya Textiles Vs. Virender Singh C.C.No.6318/A 26.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Praveen Kumar Sharma, 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 evidence. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 M/s Hydrotech Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Sanjay Gupta & Associates C.C.No.6450/12 26.04.2012 Statement of Mr. S.N. Sharma, 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.CW-1 which bears my signatures at Point A and Point B. I hereby close my evidence. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 M/s Aditya Textiles Vs. Virender Singh C.C.No.6318/A 26.04.2012 Present: AR of the complainant firm with 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 the accused Virender Singh 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 30.07.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 Ms. Meera Hemant Vs. Ms. Rashmi Singh C.C.No.6585/12 26.04.2012 Present: Complainant with 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 the accused Ms. Rashmi Singh 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 30.07.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 M/s Hydrotech Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Sanjay Gupta & Associates C.C.No.6450/12 26.04.2012 Present: AR of the Complainant company with 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 and accused No.2 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 30.07.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 M/s Sekhawati Capital Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mohammad Ansar & Anr.
C.C.No.4399/1026.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Sanjay Singh, AR of the complainant company. On S.A. I, the above named AR of the complainant company do hereby state that I do not want to pursue with the present matter since the accused has expired. Therefore, I may be allowed to withdraw the present complaint case. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 Pradeep Puri Vs. Gulshan Rai Chadda C.C.No.6140/11 26.04.2012 Statement of Complainant Mr. Pradeep Puri (recalled for cross-examination on an application U/s 145(2) NI Act).
XXXXX by Mr. H.S. Kohli, Ld. Counsel for the accused. On S.A. I am operating as trader of computer Hardware items in the name and style of M/s Presto Computers from my residential address at Keshav Puram since the year 1998. I have taken no licence to run the aforesaid business. I am assessed in Income Tax since 2004. I have not filed any copy of ITR on the record of this court. I have disclosed the source of income in my ITRs from trading being carried out in the name and style of my aforesaid firm. I have not disclosed any other source of income in my ITRs. I am aware of the fact that I am duty bound to disclose my all sources of income in the income tax return tendered by me voluntarily and have to remit the tax on the basis of computation of taxable income in such ITR. It is correct that I have disclosed my all incomes from the loan sources in the respective ITRs.
I know the accused and his family since the year 2006. Again said it may be 2004 or 2005. I have stated correctly. My acquaintance with the accused and his family and we had been making courtesy visits to each other on social engagements. We, me and my family had come across the accused person as my brother Deep Puri had been rendering tuitions to the two daughters of accused by visiting his place. Again said my aforesaid brother had been visiting the accused person at the both residential addresses furnished by me on the complaint. I clarify that since the accused person was having a place of abode at Keshav Puram initially, as such my aforesaid brother had been visiting the accused person at his residential address of Keshav Puram to render tuition to his daughters. However, since the accused had shifted his place of residence to Rajouri Garden. As such my brother had been rendering tuitions at Rajauri Garden. The witness is confronted with the memo of parties of the complaint.
Cross-examination deferred at lunch time. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 Shashi Kapoor Vs. Deepak Behl C.C.No.5131/10 26.04.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Copy of Bailable Warrant received which is unexecuted.
Ahlmad shall also explain how he issued Bailable Warrant for 24.04.2012 whereas the date was 26.04.2012.
Bailable Warrant be further issued afresh for 23.07.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 D.S. Chadha Vs. Arjun C.C.No.2258/10 & 2260/10 26.04.2012 Present: None.
These are two connected matters.
Process U/s 82/83 Cr.P.C. received back.
Process server be called for 30.04.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 Narender Kumar Aggarwal Vs. I.P. Singh Randhawa C.C.No.2369/10 26.04.2012 Present: None.
Summons unserved.
Fresh summons be issued only after filing fresh address of the accused.
List on 04.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 M/s Sekhawati Capital Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ganesh Yadav & Anr.
C.C.No.4377/10
26.04.2012
Present: AR of the complainant.
Summons unserved.
Fresh summons be issued only after filing fresh address of the accused.
List on 05.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 Ashok Kumar Jain Vs. Sukhbir Singh Solanki C.C.No.4835/10 26.04.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
HC Jagmohan absent despite service. However, he has sent a request for next date on the ground that he has to go to Ambala.
Let he be called again for 10.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 Dharmender Singh Vs. V.K. Gupta Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
C.C.No. 26.04.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
At request, list on 10.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 Rafikul Islam Vs. Mohd. Shoaib C.C.No.1248/10 26.04.2012 Present: None.
Process Server Contable Praveen is present.
He submits that he has executed the process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. only in one case i.e. CC No. 1284/10.
His statement recorded.
It appears that process has also been published in Vir Arjun dated 09.01.2012. The newspaper publication is not in accordance with law and it does not provide for a mandatory 30 days period. However, since regular process has been duly executed, there is no requirement to again issue fresh process.
Affidavit of the complainant can be read in evidence whenever accused is apprehended. Therefore, there is no necessity to proceed U/s 299 Cr.P.C.
SHO is directed to register an FIR U/s 174A IPC.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A copy of this order be sent to the SHO.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 Rafikul Islam Vs. Mohd. Shoaib C.C.No.1179/10 26.04.2012 Present: None.
In the connected matter, FIR has been directed to be registered against the accused U/s 174A IPC. However, in this matter, regular process for 20.01.2012 has not been received.
A clarification be called from the SHO and Ahlmad for 05.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012 M/s IDS Denmed (P) Ltd. Vs. Kunal Nagpal C.C.No.6576/12, 6577/12 & 6578/12 26.04.2012 Present: Both the parties with counsels.
These are three connected matters.
At request of the parties, matter be sent to Mediation Cell for 05.05.2012 after lunch.
Regular date of hearing is 07.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.04.2012