Delhi District Court
Page No. 1/23 vs Mr. Man Singh on 3 March, 2014
Page No. 1/23
THE COURT OF MS. SUJATA KOHLI
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (WEST)
TIS HAZARI : DELHI
IN THE MATTERS OF:
(1) CS No. 813/2010
L&T FINANCE LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
L&T HOUSE, BALLARD ESTATE,
P.O. BOX278,
MUMBAI400001.
REGIONAL OFFICE AT:
1 DLF INDUSTRIAL AREA,
MAIN NAJAFGARH ROAD,
NEAR MOTI NAGAR METRO STATION,
MOTI NAGAR, NEW DELHI110015.
THROUGH SH. CHANDRESH BOLIA.
......PETITIONER/APPLICANT
VERSUS
MR. MAN SINGH
S/o KARE SINGH,
H. No. 570, GALI No. 14,
BIKRAM COLONY, BALLGARH,
FARIDABAD, HARYANA. ......RESPONDENT
(2) CS No. 313/2011
VERSUS
MR. RAJESH KUMAR
S/o MR. KARAN SINGH,
H. No. 70/1, WARD No. 7,
TAORU, DIST. GURGAON, HARYANA
......RESPONDENT
__________________________________________________________________________
Page No. 2/23
(3) CS No. 10/2013
INDUSIND BANK LTD.
43, BAGHERIA HOUSE,
NEW FRIENDS COLONY,
NEW DELHI110065.
ALSO AT:
B18, 2nd FLOOR,
B1 BLOCK, COMMUNITY CENTRE,
JANAKPURI, DELHI110058. .....PETITIONER/OBJCTOR
VERSUS
1. M/s LAXMI SR. SEC. SCHOOL,
VPO RAHIWAS (JAT),
GURGAON122001.
2. SH. LAXMI NARAIN
S/o SH. CHANDER BHAN,
R/o VPO DHAUJ,
FARIDABAD. .....RESPONDENT
__________________________________________________________________________
(4) CS No. 353/2010
M/s HDFC BANK LTD.
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT :
9th FLOOR, ANSAL CLASSIQUE TOWER,
PLOT No. 1, JBLOCK, COMMUNITY CENTRE,
RAJOURI GARDEN, NEW DELHI.
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
MR. ANKUSH SAINI. ......PETITIONER
VERSUS
VIKASH SINGH
B1/405, GAMARI,
DELHI110053.
ALSO AT:
C33, AZAD NAGAR,
DELHI110051. ...RESPONDENT
Page No. 3/23
(5) CS No. 356/2010
VERSUS
UMED NAJRUDDIN
B1/405, GAMARI,
DELHI110053.
ALSO AT:
C33, AZAD NAGAR,
DELHI110051. ....RESPONDENT
(6) CS No. 354/2010
VERSUS
ARUN KUMAR
2/116, ARYA MOHALLA,
NANGLOI, GALI No. 2,
NEW DELHI110041.
ALSO AT:
579, KATRIYA MARKET,
OPP. FIRE STATION,
NEW RAILWAY ROAD,
GURGAON122001. ......RESPONDENT
__________________________________________________________________________
(7) CS No. 245/2011
M/s TARU AGENCIES & INVESTMENT PVT. LTD.
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
SHOP No. 11/175,
NEW MOTI NAGAR,
NEW DELHI1110015 ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
SH. MAHESH KUMAR
S/o KISHORI LAL
R/o D122, TAJPUR PAHARI,
BADARPUR, NEW DELHI. ....RESPONDENT
Page No. 4/23
(8) CS No. 70/2012
VERSUS
SH. SATDEV MANI TIWARI
S/o BHARAV PRASAD
R/o H. No. 650, GALI No. 09,
BLOCKE, WEST VINOD NAGAR,
DELHI. .....RESPONDENT
(9) CS No. 67/2012
VERSUS
SH. MUKESH
S/o SH. MEWA RAM,
R/o A81, PREM NAGAR,
BLOCKABC,
KIRARI SULEMAN, DELHI,
NEW DELHI86. .....RESPONDENT
__________________________________________________________________________
(10) CS No. 342/2011
KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LTD.
A SUBSIDIARY OF KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. AND A COMPANY
INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: 3638, A, NARIMAN BHAWAN,
227, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI400032, AND HAVING ONE OF ITS
BRANCH AT PLOT No. 4, UNIT No. 101, 1st FLOOR, DDA BUILDING,
DISTRICT CENTRE, LAXMI NAGAR, DELHI82,
AND AMONGST OTHERS ONE OF ITS BRANCH AT 4, SECTOR4, MARKET,
NORTH WEST AVENUE, CLUB ROAD, PUNJABI BAGH, DELHI26.
THROUGH ITS ASSOCIATE: SH. SHRAYANSH RASTOGI.
......PETITIONER
VERSIS
ADITYA MALHOTRA
R/o HOUSE No. 2824,
SECTOR7/A,
FARIDABAD, (HARYANA)121006 ....RESPONDENT
Page No. 5/23
(11) CS No. 183/2010
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
3636A, NARIMAN BHAWAN,
227, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI.
BRANCH OFFICE AT:
G9, VIKAS PURI,
NEW DELHI18.
ACTING THROUGH AND BY THE HANDS OF
PANKAJ WASAN. ....PETITIONER
VERSUS
PAWAN KUMAR
S/o SH. RAMNIWASH YADAV,
R/o 122, KANGAN HERI VILLAGE,
NEW DELHI. ....RESPONDENT
__________________________________________________________________________
(12) Ex. No. 85/10
TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD.
(A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF INDIAN COMPANIES
ACT, 1913, HAVING ITS REGISTEED OFFICE AT: 3rd FLOOR, NANAVATI MAHALAYA,
18, HOMI MODI STREET, FORT MUMBAI400001)
....DH
VERSUS
1. MANJEET MALIK
S/o RAM CHAND MALIK,
H. No. F37, ARYA SAMAJ ROAD,
UTTAM NAGAR,
DELHI110059.
2. ROHTAS MALIK
H. No. F37, ARYA SAMAJ ROAD,
UTTAM NAGAR,
DELHI110059. ...JDs
Page No. 6/23
(13) Ex. No. 86/2010
VERSUS
GURVIDER SINGH KOHLI
C/o SURINDER SINGH KOHLI,
HOUSE No. 3, FIRST FLOOR ROAD No. 27A,
EAST PUNJABI BAGH,
NEW DELHI110026.
....JD
(14) EX. No. 89/2010
VERSUS
DIVYA NIKHIL KUNDRA
C/O RAVINDER NATH KUNDRA
J8/76, RAJOURI GARDEN,
NEW DELHI27. ...JD
(15) EX. NO. 60/11
VERSUS
SANJEEV KUMAR
GH2/149A, ANKUR APPT.,
PASCHIM VIHAR,
DELHI11041.
...JD
(16) EX. No. 59/11
VERSUS
NAVIN CHOPRA
S/o SANJEEV CHOPRA
E68, BALI NAGAR,
DELHI15.
...JD
(17) EX. No. 73/11
VERSUS
Page No. 7/23
1. PRITPAL SINGH
S/O SOHAN SINGH
O165, VANI VIHAR,
GEETA ENCLAVE, UTTAM NAGAR,
DELHI59.
2. SOHAN SINGH
S/O SURENDER SINGH
O165, VANI VIHAR,
GEETA ENCLAVE, UTTAM NAGAR,
DELHI59.
....JDs
(18) EX. No. 71/11
VERSUS
JASWANT SINGH
S/o GURPAL SINGH
469, POCKETB.
LIG FLATS, HASTSAL, UTTAM NAGAR,
DELHI59.
...JD
(19) EX. No. 70/11
VERSUS
GURPREET SINGH DHALIWAL
S/o GURDEEP SINGH,
HOUSE No. 30B,
C6A, JANAK PURI,
NEW DELHI58.
...JD
(20) EX. No. 81/11
TATA CAPITAL LTD.
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT:
A53, NARAINA INDUSTRIES AREA, PHASEII,
OPP. PEARL ACADEMY OF FESHION,
NEW DELHI28. ....DH
Page No. 8/23
VERSUS
SURESH KHUNGAR
C/o NARAIN DAS KHUNGAR,
8/8, 1st FLOOR, SUBHASH NAGAR,
NEW DELHI27.
....JD
(21) EX. No. 76/11
VERSUS
PRADEEP SHOKEEN
S/O DHARAMVEER SHOKEEN
H. No. 927, SAINI MOHALLA,
SHIV MANDIR MARG,
NANGLOI, DELHI41.
....JD
(22) EX. No. 84/10
VERSUS
RAJU
S/o SHIV LAL,
A14, GOVIND PARK, JAGAT PURI,
DELHI.
ALSO AT:
H. No. 136, STREET No. 6, PRATAP NAGAR,
NANGLOI, DELHI86.
2. SAMSHAD KHAN
ALI SHIV MANDIR SAYMI BAZAR JOHRIPUR,
DELH94.
....JDs
(23) EX. No. 23/11
VERSUS
NARESH SHOKEEN,
Page No. 9/23
S/o RAJINDER SINGH
338/5, ASHOK MOHALLA,
NANGLOI, GALI No. 5,
DELHI41.
2. DAYA NAND
S/O SAMUNDER SINGH,
62, INDER RAJ COLONY,
BAWANA, NEW DELHI39.
...JDs
__________________________________________________________________________
(24) EX. No. 104/11
THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND N.V.
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS ABN AMRO BANK)
HANSALYA BUILDING,
15, BARAKHAMBA ROAD,
NEW DELHI.
....DH
VERSUS
C. NAGPAL
B/22, 3rd FLOOR, MOTI NAGAR,
NEAR MOTI NAGAR METRO STATION,
NEW DELHI15.
...JD
(25) EX. No. 102/11
VERSUS
PARESH MODI,
A167, SUDARSHAN PARK,
MOTI NAGAR,
NEW DELHI15.
...JD
(26) EX. No. 105/11
VERSUS
Page No. 10/23
AJAY KAPOOR,
A58, 119B, JANAK PURI,
NEW DELHI58.
...JD
(27) EX. No. 109/11
VERSUS
SARABJIT S. JAGGI,
S1/47, OLD MAHAVEER NAGAR,
TILAK NAGAR,
NEW DELHI18.
....JD
(28) EX. No. 110/11
VERSUS
D.K. DUA
M123, BASEMENT, GURU HAR KRISHAN NAGAR,
PASCHIM VIHAR, (NEAR NANITAL BANK),
NEW DELHI87.
.....JD
(29) EX. No. 111/11
VERSUS
BABITA BATURA,
7309/5, GALI No. 1, PREM NAGAR,
SHAKTI NAGAR, NEW DELHI15.
...JD
__________________________________________________________________________
(30) EX. No. 34/12
M/s RELIANCE CAPITAL LTD.
A NON BANKING FINANCE COMPANY CONSTITUTED
UNDER HE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
Page No. 11/23
HBLOCK, 1st FLOOR,
DHIRUBHAI AMBANI KNOWLEDGE CITY,
NAVI MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA.
HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT:
260261, DEV HOUSE, TRIBHUVAN COMPLEX,
ISHWAR NAGAR, NEW FRIENDS COLONY,
NEW DELHI110025.
THROUGH ITS ATTORNEY & DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
SH. SOM NATH PANDEY,
260261, DEV HOUSE, TRIBHUVAN COMPLEX,
ISHWAR NAGAR, NEW FRIENDS COLONY,
NEW DELHI110025.
....CLAIMANT (S)/AWARD HOLDER (S)
VERSUS
1. MR. JUGAL KISHORE
WZ468/C, MS BLOCK,
HARI NAGAR, NR. SHIV MANDIR,
DELHI64.
2. J.K. TOUR & TRAVELS
(THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MR. JUGAL KISHORE)
C159, OFF. No. B18,
BASEMENT, NARAINA INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASEI,
NR. VIJAYA BANK, NEW DELHI28.
....RESPONDENT (S)/JUDGMENT DEBTOR (S)
(31) EX. No. 39/12
VERSUS
MR. AJAY KUMAR
A1B/125A, GROUND FLOOR,
LIG FLATS, PASCHIM VIHAR,
NEW DELHI63.
......RESPONDENT (S)/JUDGMENT DEBTOR (S)
(32) EX. NO. 37/12
Page No. 12/23
VERSUS
AJAY KUMAR,
LIG FLAT No. 125A, POCKET A 1B,
KRISHNA APARTMENT, PASCHIM VIHAR,
NEW DELHI63.
...RESPONDENT (S)/JUDGMENT DEBTOR (S)
__________________________________________________________________________
(33) M/EX. No. 03/2011
M/s SPERRY PLAST LIMITED
B.M. HOUSE, H88A,
KIRTI NAGAR,
NEW DELHI110015.
....DH/APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. M/s BONAVENTURE SHOES PVT. LTD.,
55, EVK SAMPATH ROAD,
VEPERY, CHENNAI600 007.
2. MR. N. SHAFEEQ AHMED
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
M/s BONAVENTURE SHOES PVT. LTD.,
55, EVK SAMPATH ROAD,
VEPERY, CHENNAI600 007.
......JD/NONAPPLICANTS
__________________________________________________________________________
(34) EX. No. 02/12
M/s ORIX AUTO INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES LTD.
(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS M/s ORIX AUTO & BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LTD.)
REGISTERED OFFICE:
94, MAROL COOPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
ANDHERIKURLA ROAD, ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI400059.
REGIONAL OFFICE:
11A, SHIVAJI MARG, MOTI NAGAR,
Page No. 13/23
NEW DELHI110015.
....DH
VERSUS
1. SANJEEV KUMAR
S/o MR. JAGAN LAL,
R/O H. No. 1612/26, JAWAHAR COLONY,
VILLSARAN, DISTT. FARIDABAD,
HARYANA.
2. CHARAN LAL
S/o MR. JAGAN LAL,
R/O H. No. 1612/26, JAWAHAR COLONY,
VILLSARAN, DISTT. FARIDABAD,
HARYANA.
...JDs
__________________________________________________________________________
(35) EX. No. 92/10
VERSUS
CHOLAMANDALAM DBS FINANCE LTD.
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1913, HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT : DARE HOUSE No. 2, NSC BOSE ROAD,
PARRYS, CHENNAI600001,
AND
6, PUSA ROAD,
NEW DELHI.
....DH
VERSUS
1. USHA BHALLA
H. No. 32/42, WEST PUNJABI BAGH,
NEW DELHI26.
2. ANKHUSH BHALLA,
Page No. 14/23
H. No. 32/42, WEST PUNJABI BAGH,
NEW DELHI26.
...JDs
__________________________________________________________________________
(36) EX. No. 02/13
HDFC BANK LTD.
A BANKING COMPANY INCORPORATED AND REGISTERED
UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
HDFC BANK HOUSE, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG,
LOWER PAREL, (WEST), MUMBAI400013.
AND BRANCH OFFICE AT:
9th FLOOR, ANSAL CLASSIQUE TOWER, PLOT No. 1,
JBLOCK, COMMUNITY CENTER, RAJOURI GARDEN,
NEW DELHI.
....DH
VERSUS
VIRENDER KUMAR SHARMA
HOUSE No. 203,
BANK ENCLAVE, LAXMI NAGAR,
NEW DELHI92.
....JD
(37) EX. No. 157/2010
VERSUS
1. SH. SURESH KUMAR
S/o SH. SHAMSHER SINGH,
F65, RAJENDER PARK EXTENSION,
NANGLOI, DELHI41.
2. SH. WAZIR SINGH
S/o SH. RANJEET SINGH
WZ24, HARI SINGH PARK, MULTAN NAGAR,
NEW DELHI56.
....JDs
Page No. 15/23
(38) EX. No. 34/11
VERSUS
1. M/s SHANTI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
AT: 306, AGARWAL MILLENIUM TOWER,
NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE, DELHI.
THROUGH PROP. SH. KRISHAN GOPAL RUSTOGI.
NEW ADDRESS:
407, GROUND FLOOR, DEEPALI ENCLAVE,
PITAMPURA, DELHI34.
OFFICE ADDRESS:
408, SECOND FLOOR, DEEPALI ENCLAVE, PITAM PURA,
DELHI34.
2. SMT. KIRAN RUSTOGI
S/O SH. KRISHAN GOPAL RUSTOGI,
R/o 208, SATHI APARTMENT, PLOT No. 18,
SECTOR9, ROHINI, NEW DELHI.
....JDs
(39) EX. NO. 92/11
VERSUS
1. SATYA PRAKASH
S/O LATE SH. JAGRAM SINGH YADAV,
R/o BARAULI AHIR, AGRA, UP.
2. NAHAR SINGH YADAV
S/o LATE SH. JAGRAM SINGH YADAV,
R/OBARAULI AHIR, AGRA, UP.
....JDs
(40) EX. No. 91/11
VERSUS
1. SANDEEP KUMAR
S/o LATE SH. RAM INDRA PRAKASH,
R/o - 6, ASHOK NAGAR, ETAWAH,
Page No. 16/23
UTTAR PRADESH.
2. SANDEEV KUMAR
S/o LATE SH. KAPTAN SINGH,
R/o VIJNAORA, POSTPURILA,
UMRAIN.
...JDs.
__________________________________________________________________________
(41) EX. No. 19/2012
VERSUS
INDUSIND BANK LTD.
THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
NEW No. 34, OLD Nos. 115116,
G.N. CHETTY ROAD, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI600017.
ALSO AT:
7/8, NEW VISHAL MARKET,
DR. MUKHERJEE NAGAR,
DELHI.
...DH
VERSUS
1. M/S SUDARSHAN CONSOLIDATED LTD.
304305, SHIVAM HOUSE,
KARAMPURA, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,
HOUSE No. 176, VILLAGEBANNKHER,
DELHI.
2. MR. ARVIND KUMAR AGGARWAL,
105, GHS VIDHYA VIHAR, SECTOR9,
ROHINI, DELHI.
..JDs
(42) EX. No. 18/12
VERSUS
1. M/S SUDARSHAN CONSOLIDATED LTD.
304305, SHIVAM HOUSE,
Page No. 17/23
KARAMPURA, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,
HOUSE No. 176, VILLAGEBANNKHER,
DELHI.
2. MR. ARVIND KUMAR AGGARWAL,
105, GHS VIDHYA VIHAR, SECTOR9,
ROHINI, DELHI.
...JDs
__________________________________________________________________________
(43) EX. No. 131/2010
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.
A BANKING COMPANY & HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
3638A, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI.
AND ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT:
17th FLOOR, AMBEDEEP BUILDING,
14, K.G. MARG, NEW DELHI110 001.
....DH
VERSUS
ARVIND BATRA,
A220, 1st FLOOR,
JANAK PURI, NEW DELHI58.
ALSO AT:
SONA ENTERPRISES
WZ10, ASLATPUR, A2,
JANAK PURI, NEW DELHI58.
...JD
__________________________________________________________________________
(44) EX. No. 04/2013
CITY FINANCIAL CONSUMER FINANCE INDIA LTD.
3, LSC, PUSHP VIHAR,
NEW DELHI110 062.
....DH
VERSUS
Page No. 18/23
1. MR. GURJEET SINGH
S/o MR. PRATAP SINGH KOHLI,
D31, TAGORE GARDEN EXTENSION,
NEW DELHI27.
ALTERNATE ADDRESS:
MR. GURJEET SINGH
S/o MR. PRATAP SINGH KOHLI,
C/o M/s SIMRAN ENTERPRISES,
AD90, TAGORE GARDEN EXTN.,
NEW DELHI27.
2. MR. KAMAL DEEP
S/O GURJEET SINGH
D31, TAGORE GARDEN EXTN.,
NEW DELHI27.
ALTERNATE ADDRESS:
MR. KAMAL DEEP
S/o GUREET SINGH
C/o M/s GTA DATA SERVICES (P) LTD.
TEAM ASSOCIATE, 5th FLOOR,
ORCHIEF SQUARE, SUSHANT LOK,
PHASEI, GURGAON.
3. MR. PRATAP SINGH KOHLI
D31, TAGORE GARDEN EXTN.,
NEW DELHI27.
4. MRS. GURCHARAN KAUR,
W/o MR. PRATAP SINGH KOHLI,
D31, TAGORE GARDEN EXTN.,
NEW DELHI27.
...JDs
__________________________________________________________________________
03.03.2014
COMMON ORDER:
Upon a uniform and consistent pattern, a peculiar trend has emerged from the entire above noted matters which have led to passing of this common bunch order. The Page No. 19/23 subject matters of all these separate execution petitions and the objection petitions if added up is running into crores of rupees, raising several serious questions as under:
2. Firstly, that hundreds of petitions like these (as so many must be pending in other courts as well) involving lacs/crores of rupees of the private companies involved, is just going down the drain, and virtually who are the persons who stand to gain from the outcome.
The glaring factual position in the cases taken together is as under:
(i). Loans for huge amounts are sanctioned to different borrowers without obtaining any valuable security.
(ii). They are disbursed without obtaining any security.
(iii). The borrowers allegedly almost always go into default and arbitration proceedings or civil suits are filed.
(iv). In the 99.9% cases, the awards/decrees obtained, are exparte as borrowers are stated to be not traceable.
(v). At the execution stage as well, borrowers are not traceable.
(vi). For some reasons, the companies come under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to obtain possession of the vehicle in case of vehicle loan.
(vii). In those cases, where interim order was passed, either there was no report from receiver regarding repossession or the report was only that the vehicle was untraceable.
3. Net result all along is that a sum of almost Rs. 2,66,68,320.2/ has gone down the drain with not even so much as a frown on the 'so called' ARs of the companies.
Page No. 20/234. It has to be considered that the financial institution in question are seen almost as if 'distributing' loans without security, thereafter engaging an arbitrator and lawyers at their own expenses, and virtually they cannot trace any of the borrowers and they obtain exparte awards. They again engage lawyers for the executions and again the executions are not possible because the JDs are not traceable and they are conveniently sought to be withdrawn.
5. The question which arises is, as to whether, it can be possible that a financial institution, equipped with the best of business skills and legal assistance at hand can go on 'distributing' totally unsecure loans in this manner involving crores of rupees. If it is not the companies themselves, then, who would indulge in this practice, whether it might be some employees who stand to gain.
6. Furthermore, conspicuous practices noticeable are for instance that many a time, the original loan agreements were required to be produced, but same were not produced in spite of sufficient opportunities.
7. Upon perusal of photocopies, the loan agreements do not even contain the parentage of the borrower, which by itself was quite shocking. A bank or a financial institution in the normal course, would hold ample inquiry, and verification of a borrower, taking pains to even send officials to the spot but then the facts as they emerge from the above noted cases, it seems clear that there was no inquiry, even, for such like 'loans'.
8. Going further one step, it is even questionable as to whether there were any borrowers even in existence or not, OR whether these entire socalled alleged loans were disbursed to certain other persons who assumed fictitious names and identities and Page No. 21/23 addresses of the 'borrowers' i.e. dummy borrowers.
9. It may also be one of the possibilities that if indeed there are some defaulters in existence, the employees might be having independent dealings with the defaulters and aiding them to disappear in return for some monetary gain for themselves.
10. Rarely the Board Resolution in favour of so called authorized representatives were produced in original and rarely the statements of account duly certified by any senior responsible officer were filed.
11. Further in few cases, where there was indeed a borrower, when he filed objection petition to the exparte awards, the arbitral record was not produced for as long a period as two years and in fact never produced in spite of repeated directions to the arbitrator.
The arbitrators themselves could not be served without much difficulty and considerable time spent.
12. On service of Abitrator himself, as and when they finally were served, they informed that the arbitral record in original had been handed over to the respondent i.e. the financial company (i.e. the winning party itself) which again was quite a surprising process, in as much as, it would amount to a court (after announcing the decision) handing over the judicial file to one of the parties and i.e. to the winning party.
13. Now, the detailed proceedings in each case are being reproduced, as and when, they are relevant to highlight these glaring aspects, as, after all, said and done; the money of the private company in question should be a matter of concern for the Board of Directors of the company and also of the concerned Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs as well as Reserve Bank of India and C.A.G., as to where all this money is coming from and Page No. 22/23 where it is going and into whose accounts, just in case that these may be fake and fictitious accounts.
14. Similar matters were taken up together to find out as to how much money has been involved in all these visibly sham transactions and to see who can be the gainers and who would be the losers.
15. At a glance data as retrieved from as many as 44 matters (more to follow) is as per 'AnnexureA' (Colly), and the proceedings therein are, as per 'AnnexureB' (Colly).
16. In view of the entire above data as reproduced, as in Annexure A and B (Colly), it is quite shocking that almost an amount nearing Rs. 2,66,68,320.2/ has been put at stake without any security, surety, with there being no expectation that it shall ever be recovered. What are the motives and who are the people to gain out of these evidently collusive transactions is a question mark and the matter would no doubt be required to be thoroughly investigated by the concerned departments.
Copy of this order be sent to :
1. Joint Secretary,Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi1100001.
2. Regional Director for Delhi, Reserve Bank of India, 6 Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110001.
3. The Comptroller & Auditor General of India, Pocket9, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg, New Delhi110 12, for their information and further investigation and action as found necessary in Page No. 23/23 accordance with law.
Copy be also placed before the Ld. District Judge, (West) and Ld. District Judge, (HQ) for circulation, if deemed appropriate.
Above bunch cases stand dismissed for nonprosecution, attested copy of the common Order be placed in each of the files, and files be consigned to Record Room thereafter.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OEPN COURT (SUJATA KOHLI) TODAY i.e. ON 03th MARCH, 2014 Additional District Judge (West) THC/Delhi:03.03.2014 Annexure 'A' Colly.
Annexure 'B' Colly.
Page No. 24/23'ANNEXUREA' (COLLY) Ex. Nos DECREED AMOUNT INTEREST COST TOTAL
1. 157/10 Rs. 4,65,517/ + 22499/ + 6000/ =4,94,016/
2. 91/11 Rs. 3,40,427/ + 1,07,234/ + 'Nil' =4,47,661/
3. 34/11 Rs. 8,95,904/ + 80,631/ + 6000/ =9,82,535/
4. 81/11 Rs. 4,39,840/ + 70,618/ + 5000/ =5,15,458/
5. 34/12 Rs. 5,19,561/ + 80,908/ + 7000/ =6,07,469/
6. 39/12 Rs. 7,95,068/ + 81,241/ + 7000/ =8,83,309/
7. 70/11 Rs. 6,01,066/ + 1,16,393/ + 5000/ =7,22,459/
8. 71/11 Rs. 5,08,050/ + 93,302/ + 5000/ =6,06,352/
9. 89/10 Rs. 5,12,157/ + 52,409/ + 5000/ =5,69,566/
10. 73/11 Rs. 9,79,108/ + 2,05,611/ + 5000/ =11,89,719/
11. 60/11 Rs.4,82,517/+ 93,444/ + 5000/ =5,80,961/
12. 102/11 Rs. 54,688/ + 3158/ + 1000/ =58,846/
13. 104/11 Rs. 50,340/ + 2915 + 1000 =54,255/
14. 84/10 Rs. 5,53,043/ + 56,494 + 5000 =6,14,637/
15. 59/11 Rs. 5,11,138/ + 1,04,605/ + 5000 =6,20,743/
16. 23/11 Rs. 15,96,193/ + 3,11,256/ + 5000/ =19,12,449/
17. 76/11 Rs. 4,18,025/ + 1,02,410/ + 5000/ =5,25,435/
18. 37/12 Rs. 7,64,911/ + 74,853/ + 7000/ =8,46,764/ Page No. 25/23
19. 92/10 Rs. 1,51,084/ + 90,650+72,520/ + 4411/ =3,18,665/
20. 02/13 Rs. 4,32,692/ + 44,350/ + 6557/ = 4,83,599/ 21.02/12 Rs. 3,25,856/ = 3,25,856/
22. 109/11 Rs. 60,053/ + 3503/ + 1000/ =64,556/
23. 105/11 Rs. 78,975/ + 4606/ + 1000/ = 84,581/
24. 04/13 Rs. 7,97,7000/ + 4,66,245/ + 10,500/ = 12,73,745/
25. 92/11 Rs. 7,47,434/ (T.C. ISSUED) = 7,47,434/
26. 18/12 Rs. 12,17,440/ + 500/ = 12,17,940/
27. 19/12 Rs. 12,46,087/ + 500/ = 12,46,087/
28. 111/11 Rs. 67,831/ + 3956/ + 1000/ = 72,787/
29. 110/11 Rs. 2,40,175/ + 14010/ + 1000/ = 2,55,185/
30. 99/11 (M. No.03/11) Rs. 14,24,533/ + 13,03,447/ = 27,27,980/
31. 131/10 Rs. 7,45,285/ + 5,81,322/ = 13,26,660/
32. 85/10 Rs. 11,49,265/ + 5,86,125/ = 17,35,390/
33. 86/10 Rs. 3,40,606/ + 1,73,706/ = 5,14,312/_____ TOTAL = 2, 46, 27, 371/ __________________________________________________________________________ Objection Petitions U/S 34 as well as U/S 6 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - Amount is involved as under: Obj. Pet. Nos AMOUNT AWARDED INTEREST COST TOTAL
1. 183/10 Rs.3,02,059/ +37,757/ = 3,39,816/
2. 342/11 Rs. 2,73,735/ = 2,73,735/ Page No. 26/23
3. 67/12 Rs. 1,18,629/ (as on 12.1.12) + 7,414/ (3% penal) = 1,26,043/
4. 70/12 Rs. 44,245/(as on 20.12.12) + 2765/(3% penal) = 47,010/
5. 245/11 Rs. 43,047/ (as on 10.06.11) + 3443/(3% penal) =46,490/
6. 354/10 Rs. 53,141/ = 53,141/
7. 356/10 Rs. 21,439.03/ = 21,439.03/
8. 353/10 Rs. 55,479.09/ =55,479.09/
9. 10/13 Rs. 70,760.08/ = 70,760.08/
10. 313/11 Rs. 4,02,389/ + 3,86,293/ =7,88,682/
11. 813/10 Rs. 1,20,306/ + 9022/ (36% p.a.) from 16.11.10 to 30.1.11 + 89,026/ (24% p.a.) from 31.1.11 till February, 2014 = 2,18,354/ TOTAL =20, 40, 949.2/ __________________________________________________________________________ Page No. 27/23 'ANNEXUREB' (COLLY) KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK Vs. Pawan Kumar (Suit for Recovery), CS No. 183/2010.
Order sheets dated 12.04.2012, 17.07.2012 (2.30 PM), 09.05.2013, 29.07.2013.
"CS183/2010 12.04.2012 Present: None.
By the summary suit u/o 37 CPC, the plaintiff bank sought recovery of Rs. 3,02,059/ on account a vehicle loan.
Though, the defendant in spite of being served duly with the summons for judgment, failed to file any application for leave to defend which have been served on 10.02.2012, the plaintiff would have become entitled to judgment forthwith, but for certain major and glaring shortcomings noticed in the plaint which may go to the root of the maintainability of the suit itself as filed in the present form, mainly being that the plaintiff bank has claimed recovery of loans on the basis of deed of assignment alleged to have been executed by the ICICI bank limited in favour of the plaintiff, but the material documents i.e. the deed of assignment in original has not been produced, in view of this, an opportunity would be extended to the plaintiff to clarify and also exercise an option to convert the suit into an ordinary suit, if the plaintiff so wants.
Put up for clarification on 03.05.2012 sd/ (Sujata Kohli) ADJ(West)Delhi/12.04.2012"
"AT 2.30 PM 17.07.2012 Present: Sh. Viju, Associate Counsel for the Counsel for the plaintiff Page No. 28/23 appearing for the first time since morning.
Vide Order dated 12.04.2012, some clarifications were sought from the plaintiff. It is seen that opportunity had been extended to the plaintiff bank by way of a clarification but it is evident that the plaintiff bank is not inclined to avail the same.
However, in the interest of justice, one last opportunity is extended for the counsel to go through the last order dated 12.04.2012 and to give necessary clarifications. Also the AR of the plaintiff must appear in person on the NDOH. In default, the judgment will be passed straightaway on the NDOH on the material available on the record.
List on 28.07.2012.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:17.07.2012"
"AT 2.30 PM
09.05.2013
Present: Sh. Bishu, Proxy Counsel for
Counsel for plaintiff.
Matter was kept awaited for the presence of AR or counsel for plaintiff company, however, in spite of repeated calls since morning, none of them has appeared and only proxy counsel has appeared who is also not sure about his submissions as sometimes he says that main counsel is not coming and sometimes he says that main counsel is coming.
In view of this, matter cannot be adjourned unnecessarily any further.
As such, matter would come up for Orders on
31.05.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:09.05.2013"
Page No. 29/23
"At 2:20 PM
C.S. No.183/10
29.07.2013
Present: None.
None since morning in spite of repeated calls. It is noted that in spite of more than sufficient opportunities extended to exercise the option offered to AR, but neither the AR nor the counsel ever appeared.
Now let this matter come up for final orders on the basis of material on record on 13.08.2013.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
DV DELHI:29.07.2013"
________________________________________________________________________ Vs. Aditya Malhotra (U/S 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996), CS No. 342/11.
Ordersheets dated 03.12.2011, 07.12.2011, 28.01.2012, 19.07.2012, 30.05.2013.
"03.12.2011 Present: Ld. Counsel for petitioner Sh. Vivek Munshi.
Preliminary hearing given. Original of the particulars of registration as well as certified copy of statement of account be filed. Ld. Counsel seeks time to file the same.
Subject to filing of these two documents, put up for further orders on 07.12.2011 at 4.00 PM.
sd/ (Sujata Kohli) ADJ(West)Delhi/03.12.2011"
"07.12.2011 Present: None.
Matter taken up for further consideration. Petitioner is seeking orders for seizure of the vehicle/repossession. Upon perusal of the entire record Page No. 30/23 and particularly the letter addressed to he respondent about his offer of foreclosure of the loan, from this letter it transpires as if the respondent has offered to repay the entire outstanding much before time and the petitioner bank has only think that the foreclosure receivable amount i.e. Rs. 2,77,248.66p is valid up to 06.12.2011.
The statement of account and the amount alleged to be outstanding against the respondent is not duly certified as per Banker's Book Evidence Act. The letter date 06.11.2011 titled Recall of Loan Facility cannot be reconciled with the letters dated 06.11.2011 and 06.12.2011.
In case the respondent/borrower had offered to pay of the outstanding prior o the due date and the bank has sent him a letter which itself bearing a date i.e. 06.12.2011, the same respondent/borrower could not be a defaulter at one and the same time. It will be more appropriate to issue notice of this petition to the respondent on filing of PF and RC. Steps be taken within one week.
List on 01.02.2012.
sd/ (Sujata Kohli) ADJ(West)Delhi/07.12.2011"
"28.01.2012 Present: None.
Be awaited for Ld. counsel and recalled at 2:00 PM.
Sd/ SUJATA KOHLI Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge (WEST) DELHI/28.01.2012"
"19.07.2012 Present: Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff.
Summons issued to the respondent not returned back both ways even by the previous date when undersigned was on leave.
As per order dated 18.04.2012, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff had filed the Registered AD for the service of the respondent which is on the report with the report of refusal. However, the summons issued through Process Server had Page No. 31/23 not returned back.
Let the respondent be served once again on filing of PF/RC as well as affixation. Plaintiff is directed to deposit the expenses with Nazarat Branch for Photographer. Plaintiff is also at the liberty to arrange the Photographer on his own expenses for the above mentioned purpose. Process Server shall comply all the rules for affixation including the photograph of the premises showing the premises number as per last order. Steps be taken within three days from today.
List on 05.09.2012.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:19.07.2012"
"30.05.2013
Present: None.
No steps taken since the previous date i.e. 19.07.2012 and none has been appeared in between as many as on 3 dates.
Matter shall be kept awaited till 2:00 PM today.
Sd (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/30.05.2013"
__________________________________________________________________________ TATA CAPITAL Vs. Suresh Khungar, Ex. No. 81/11 Ordersheets dated 06.08.2011.
(Unserved, with report - JD left residence 34 years back).
Further Ordersheets 09.08.2011, 18.10.2011, 18.01.2012, 12.10.2012, 21.12.2012, 23.04.2013, 09.05.2013, 21.05.2013.
"09.08.2011 Present: Ld. Counsel for DH.Page No. 32/23
Nazir's report filed. Put up on date fixed i.e. 18.10.2011.
DH is directed to file the calculation.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/DELHI"
"08.10.2011 Present: None.
Calculation filed.
In the interest of justice, put up again for compliance of last order and only for further proceedings on 18.01.2012.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/DELHI"
"18.01.2012 Present: Ld. Counsel for DH Sh. Somesh Suri.
Last Order still not complied. In the interest of justice, one more opportunity is extended. DH is directed to take steps within two weeks.
It is not clear also that why the Ld. Arbitrator has awarded the interest uptill the date of filing of petition which is by all norms calculated and included in the amount when a party goes to the court or Arbitrator.
List for clarification/calculation and further proceedings on 03.03.2012.
Sd/ (Sujata Kohli) ADJ(West)/Delhi/18.01.2012.
"12.10.2012 Present: None.
Put up for same purpose as last opportunity on 21.12.2012.
sd/
Page No. 33/23
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:12.10.2012"
"21.12.2012
Present: None.
DH had been directed to file calculations of the amount due way back in October 2011. But same has not been filed till date.
However, in the interest of justice, one last opportunity is extended for the same purpose and also the court notice be issued to the counsel for DH, alongwith copy of this order, for 16.02.2013.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/21.12.2012"
" 23.04.2013 Present: None.
Since none has been appearing for the DH for the last many dates and even court notice was issued to the counsel for DH, which has also remained unserved with the report that counsel has shifted.
As such, let court notice be issued to the DH to be served directly, returnable for 09.05.2013.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/23.04.2013
"09.05.2013
Present: None.
Court Notice as issued to the DH has returned unserved with the report that the office has shifted from the given address.
Put up only for further Orders in this execution petition on 21.05.2013.
Sd/
Page No. 34/23
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:09.05.2013"
"21.05.2013
Present: None.
Put up for further consideration and orders on 06.06.2013.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/21.05.2013"
__________________________________________________________________________ TATA MOTORS LTD.
Vs. Gurpreet Singh, Ex. No. 70/11.
Ordersheets dated 10.10.2011 (Noone with the name of JD resides at the given address Unserved), 01.03.2012, 10.04.2012, 17.07.2012, 05.10.2012, 31.05.2013, 06.06.2013.
"10.10.2011 Present: Ld. Counsel for Decree Holder.
Heard in the first instance. Let notice be issued to both the JDs on filing of PF and RC. Steps be taken within one week.
List for further proceedings on 05.12.2011.
sd/ SUJATA KOHLI Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge (WEST) DELHI/10.10.2011"
"01.03.2012 Present: None.
Fresh address and PF & RC not furnished. In the interest of justice, one last opportunity is being extended. Let fresh address alongwith PF& RC be filed within 7 days.
Put up this execution on 10.04.2012.Page No. 35/23
sd/ SUJATA KOHLI Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge (WEST) DELHI/01.03.2011"
"10.04.2012 Present : Ld. counsel for DH Sh. Pradeep Kalher.
Ld. counsel is seeking some more time to trace out the fresh address of the JD. Put up only for further proceeding on 17.07.2012.
sd/ (Sujata Kohli) ADJ (West)/Delhi/10.04.2012"
"17.07.2012 Present: Sh. Vikram Shukla, Ld. Counsel for DH.
Once again, Ld. Counsel seeking more time to traceout the fresh address of the JD.
In the interest of justice, one final opportunity is being extended for the DH to take the steps. Also, the AR of the DH must appear in person on the NDOH.
Put up again for further proceedings on 31.07.2012.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:17.07.2012"
"05.10.2012
Present: Ld. Counsel for DH.
He seeks some more time to traceout the fresh address of the JD.
Put up only for further proceedings on 19.12.2012.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:05.10.2012"
"31.05.2013
Present: Counsel for DH Sh. Pradeep.
Page No. 36/23
JD address is untraceable as stated.
Put up for Orders on 06.06.2013.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:31.05.2013"
"06.06.2013
Present: None.
Put up for further consideration and Orders on 30.07.2013.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:06.06.2013"
_________________________________________________________________________ Vs. Jaswant Singh, Ex. No. 71/11 Ordersheets dated 28.11.2011 (Unserved JD not residing at the given address), 14.02.2012, 03.08.2012, 05.10.2012, 06.06.2013.
"28.11.2011 Present: Ld. Counsel for DH.
Notice issued returned with a report that the addressee has left the given address. DH is directed to file an affidavit in respect of the present address of the JD within two weeks and subject to which fresh notice be issued on PF& RC.
Further, it is made clear that process will be issued only after bringing the affidavit to the notice of court by the Ahlmad.
List for service of notice upon JD on 14.02.2012.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ:WEST: THC Page No. 37/23 DELHI:28.11.2011"
"14.02.2012 Present: AR of the DH company Sh. Deepak Kumar.
No steps taken. AR of the DH is seeking sometime to trace out the address of the JD.
Put up only for further probabilitys on 24.04.2012.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ:WEST: THC DELHI:14.02.2012"
"03.08.2012 Present: AR Sh. Deepak Kumar for DH.
AR of the DH company seeking some more time to trace out the address of the JD.
Put up again for furnishing of new address/further proceedings on 04.09.2012 as requested.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/03.08.2012"
"05.10.2012 Present: Ld. Counsel for DH.
He seeks some more time to traceout the fresh address of the JD.
Put up only for further proceedings on 19.12.2012.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:05.10.2012"
"06.06.2013
Present: None.
No time left.
Put up for further consideration and orders on 30.07.2013.
Sd/ Page No. 38/23 (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/03.08.2012"
__________________________________________________________________________ Vs. Divya Nikhil Kundra, Ex. No. 89/10 Ordersheets dated 21.03.2011 (A to A) passed by Ld. Predecessor, 13.05.2011, 11.08.2011 (2), 12.04.2012, 30.05.2012, 05.10.2012, 08.03.2013, 20.05.2013.
"21.03.2011 (A to A) The Receiver shall deposit the keys of the said vehicle in the court. Receiver shall also mention the name of the person from the whom the vehicle was repossessed.
The vehicle shall thereafter be dealt with, in accordance with further orders of this court in the present execution.
Sd/ (HIMANI MALHOTRA) ADJ/WEST/DELHI/21.03.2011"
"13.05.2011 Present: AR of the DH in person.
Steps in terms of last order not taken. In the interest of justice, one last opportunity extended. Notice of execution petition be issued on filing of PF and RC. Be filed within one week.
List for 11.08.2011.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI13.05.2011"
"11.08.2011 Present: Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Proxy Counsel for DH.
JD has been served. None appeared on behalf of JD. Be awaited till 2.00 PM.
Sd/ Page No. 39/23 (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI/11.08.2011"
"At 2.00 pm Present: None.
JD has not appeared since morning despite repeated calls. As such, warrants of attachment be issued against the movable property of the JD on filing of PF and RC.
DH is directed to appear before the Ld. ACJ for appointment of Bailiff on 16.08.2011 and before this Court for report on 29.08.2011.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI/11.08.2011"
"12.04.2012 Present: Counsel for DH Sh. Pradeep.
No steps taken.
In the interest of justice, PF be filed within seven days in terms of last order.
Be put before Ld. ACJ on 03.05.2012 and for report before this Court on 30.05.2012.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI/12.04.2012"
"30.05.2012 Present: None.
Warrant of attachment remains unexecuted for the reasons that the bailiff was on leave.
Let fresh warrant of attachment be issued on PF. PF be filed within 7 days.
It is directed to the DH to appear before the Ld. ACJ on 11.07.2012 and for report/further proceedings before this court on 31.07.2012.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI/30.05.2012"
"05.10.2012 Present: Ld. Counsel for DH.Page No. 40/23
As per report of Bailiff, property has already been sold and are lying locked.
Ld. Counsel is seeking some time to verify the facts.
Put up only for further proceedings on 19.10.2012.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:05.10.2012"
"08.03.2013
Present: Ld. counsel for DH Sh. Pardeep.
Ld. counsel for DH is seeking some more time to trace out the fresh address and property of the JD.
In the interest of justice, put up only for further proceedings on 20.05.2013.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/08.03.2013"
"20.05.2013 Present: Sh. Pradeep Kalher, Counsel for DH.
Today he is stating that no fresh address of the JD is available.
As such, put up this matter only for further Orders on 06.06.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
SK ADJ:WEST: THC
DELHI:20.05.2013"
__________________________________________________________________________ Vs. Preet Pal Singh, Ex. No. 73/11 Ordersheets dated 09.04.2012, 26.07.2012, 05.10.2012, 07.03.2013, 07.03.2013, Page No. 41/23 28.05.2013 (2).
"09.04.2012
Present: Counsel for DH.
Notices returned unserved with the report 'No Such Person'.
Let fresh service be effected on filing of PF/RC as well as on fresh address, if any, to be filed within two weeks from today.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ:WEST: THC DELHI:09.04.2012"
"26.07.2012 Present: AR for the DH Sh. Deepak Kumar.
Sh. Deepak Kumar is today stating that due to some accident, he was not able to trace out the address of the JD.
As requested, he is given 4 weeks time to trace out the same and put up the matter for further proceedings on 04.09.2012.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/26.07.2012"
"05.10.2012 Present: Ld. Counsel for DH.
He seeks some more time to traceout the fresh address of the JD.
Put up only for further proceedings on 19.12.2012.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:05.10.2012"
"07.03.2013
Page No. 42/23
Present: None.
No fresh address of the JD has been filed. In the interest of justice, put up once again only for further proceedings on 28.05.2013.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/07.03.2013"
"28.05.2013 Present: None.
Recall at 2.00 PM.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI/28.05.2013"
"28.05.2013 Present: Sh. Pradeep Kalher, Counsel for DH.
He is stating that the fresh addresses of both the JDs are not available despite efforts.
Put up only for further Orders on 06.06.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:28.05.2013"
__________________________________________________________________________ Vs. Sanjeev Kumar, Ex. No. 60/11 Ordersheets dated 19.12.2011, 26.03.2012, 04.07.2012, 24.08.2012 (Report being 'No Such Person Resides" at the given address), 15.01.2013, 02.03.2013, 23.04.2013.
"19.12.2011 Present: Ld. Counsel for DH Sh. J.N. Diwedi.Page No. 43/23
JD is remaining unserved with a report that premise found locked each time. Let notice be issued to the JD on filing of fresh address and PF&RC within three weeks by the DH.
List for service of JD on 26.03.2012.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI/19.12.2011"
"26.03.2012 Present : Sh. Deepak Kumar stating himself to be the AR of DH.
AR Sh. Deepak Kumar stating that premises is still lying locked and he seeks some more time to ascertain the status of the movable as well as immovable property in whose name it stands and also to confirm the fresh address of JD.
Put up only for further proceeding on 04.07.2012.
sd/ (Sujata Kohli) ADJ (West)/Delhi/26.03.2012"
"04.07.2012 Present: Ld. counsel for DH Sh. Pradeep.
Ld. counsel for DH submits that upon investigation carried out by the company, the JD is confirmed to be residing at the given address. However, it has yet not been cleared that in whose name the movable as well as immovable properties stands.
Let fresh notice be issued to the JD at the same address on filing PF/RC and also in the meantime, the DH is directed to verify status of the immovable property from the Office of the Registrar concerned and given the report in writing. Steps be taken within 7 days, returnable for 24.08.2012.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI/04.07.2012"
"24.08.2012 Present: Sh. Deepak Kumar, AR for the DH.Page No. 44/23
Notice to the JD remains unserved. Issue fresh notice to the JD on PF / RC to be filed within 7 days, and in the meantime clarification regarding the assets of JD will be furnished by the NDOH.
Put up again o 20.10.2012.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:24.08.2012"
"15.01.2013
Present: Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Ld.
Counsel for DH.
No fresh steps taken.
In the interest of justice, one more opportunity is extended to the DH.
Put up only for furnishing of fresh address of the JD and for further proceedings on 02.03.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:15.01.2013"
"02.03.2013
Present: None.
No fresh address of the JD filed. In
the interest of justice, put up again for further proceedings on 23.04.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
SK ADJ:WEST: THC
DELHI:02.03.2013"
"23.04.2013
Present: Sh. Pradeep Kalher, Counsel for
Page No. 45/23
DH.
He submits that he wants to withdraw the present execution petitioner under the instructions received from the bank as no fresh address of the JD is available with them with liberty to file afresh as and when fresh address of the JD is traced.
Separate statement of the Ld. Counsel for DH is being recorded to this effect.
Put up for consideration and Orders on 08.05.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:23.04.2013"
_________________________________________________________________________ Vs. Naveen Chopra, Ex. No. 59/11 Ordersheets dated 19.12.2011, 26.03.2012, 04.07.2012, 26.07.2012, 05.10.2012, 08.03.2013, 20.05.2013.
"19.12.2011 Present: Counsel for DH, Sh. J.N. Diwedi.
JD is remaining unserved with a report that he has left the address four years back. Let notice be issued to the JD on filing of fresh address and PF&RC within three weeks by the DH.
List for service of JD on 26.03.2012.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI/19.12.2011"
"26.03.2012 Present : Sh. Deepak Kumar stating himself to be the AR of DH.
Steps not taken. The AR is seeking some more time to trace out the fresh address. In the interest of justice, Page No. 46/23 one more opportunity is extended, let PF & RC alongwith fresh fresh be filed within two weeks returnable for 04.07.2012.
sd/ (Sujata Kohli) ADJ (West)/Delhi/26.03.2012"
"04.07.2012 Present: Ld. counsel Sh. Pradeep for the DH.
No steps have been taken. It is simply being stated verbally that the fresh address of the JD is not traceable. Ld. counsel for DH has gone to the extent of making submission that the execution should be dismissed as withdrawn. This kind of submission as made is not acceptable to the court since, the entire object of litigation for the DH is to obtain fruits of litigation and it would be against the interest of justice.
However, it would be necessary for the Authorized Representative of the company to appear and make the appropriate statement.
Let copy of this order be also sent to the DH company for their information.
Put up only for appearance of the AR and further proceedings on 26.07.2012.
Copy of this order be sent both ways i.e. dasti as well as ordinary.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI/04.07.2012"
"26.07.2012 Present: AR for the DH Sh. Deepak Kumar.
Sh. Deepak Kumar is today stating that due to some accident, he was not able to trace out the address of the JD.
As requested, he is given 4 weeks time to trace out the same and put up the matter for further proceedings on 04.09.2012. sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/26.07.2012"Page No. 47/23
"05.10.2012 Present: Ld. Counsel for DH.
He seeks some more time to traceout the fresh address of the JD.
Put up only for further proceedings on 19.12.2012.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:05.10.2012"
"08.03.2013
Present: Ld. counsel for DH Sh. Pardeep.
Ld. counsel for DH is seeking some more time to trace out the fresh address and property of the JD.
In the interest of justice, put up only for further proceedings on 20.05.2013.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/08.03.2013"
"20.05.2013 Present: Sh. Pradeep Kalher, Counsel for DH.
Today he is stating that no fresh address of the JD is available.
As such, put up this matter only for further Orders on 06.06.2013.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:20.05.2013"
__________________________________________________________________________ Vs. Raju, Ex. No. 84/10 Ordersheets dated 09.02.2011, 06.04.2011, 25.05.2011, 17.01.2012, 29.03.2012, Page No. 48/23 28.08.2012 (2), 11.09.2012 (2), 03.10.2012, 06.12.2012, 15.05.2013, 06.08.2013 (2).
"09.02.2011
Present: Ld. Counsel for DH.
Ld. Counsel for DH is directed to file affidavit stating that JDs are still residing at the address mentioned in the execution petition. Learned counsel for DH is also directed to place on record copy of the loan agreement.
Put up for same on 06.04.2011.
sd/ (HEMANI MALHORA) ADJ:WEST: THC DELHI:09.02.2011"
"06.04.2011 Present: AR of the DH in person.
Despite directions copy of the loan agreement not filed. Be filed by the next date of hearing.
Put up for the same purpose on 25.5.2011.
sd/ (HEMANI MALHOTRA) ADJ:WEST: THC DELHI:06.04.2011"
"25.05.2011 Present: Ld. Counsel for DH.
Ld. Counsel for DH states that the loan agreement was in the main file of the arbitrator and the award was passed only after considering the loan agreement. As such there is no requirement of the loan agreement. However, as per record no such submission was made before my Learned Predecessor.
Matter be put up for further proceedings on 30.5.2011.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ:WEST: THC DELHI:25.05.2011"
"17.01.2012 Present: Ld. counsel for DH.Page No. 49/23
The photocopy of the agreement as filed is not at all legible.
Let the original loan agreement be produced on the next date.
Put up only for compliance and for further proceedings on 29.03.2012.
sd/ SUJATA KOHLI Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge (WEST) DELHI/17.01.2012"
"29.03.2012 Present: None.
Put up for further proceedings on 19.05.2012.
sd/ SUJATA KOHLI Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge (WEST) DELHI/29.05.2012"
"28.08.2012 Present: Sh. Deepak Kumar, present stated to be the AR of the DH stated to have been duly appointed by the DH as their representative.
He is not able to produce any Board Resolution in his favour. He relies upon a Power of Attorney which is also not duly executed at all in accordance with law.
Further it is shown to be executed by another attorney. There is no Board Resolution available in favour of the main executant. Further the original loan agreement is not being produced in spite of repeated directions and opportunities ever since for the last many dates for no sufficient cause being made.
Today was already made clear to be the last opportunity. Matter will be kept awaited till 2.30 PM for production of original loan agreement and also for production of the Board Resolution or any valid Power of Attorney in the favour of alleged AR.
The original documents being produced. (OSR). Copy thereof be filed.
Matter be recalled at 2.30 PM.
sd/
Page No. 50/23
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:28.08.2012"
"28.08.2012
Present: Ld. counsel Mr. Pradeep Kumar for DH.
Once again, the original loan agreement is not available. Ld. counsel is requesting even for more time.
Put up this matter only for further orders on 11.09.2012.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/28.08.2012"
"11.09.2012 Present: Ld. counsel for DH Sh. Pardeep.
Today, the matter is reserved for orders. Ld. counsel is requesting to produce the original loan agreement which he has brought from Mumbai.
In the interest of justice, matter has been taken up on his request. The original loan agreement, remained on the file for further consideration, to be returned at the time of further orders.
Put up for orders as scheduled at 4:00 PM today itself.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/11.09.2012"
"4.00 PM 11.09.2012 Present: None.
Matter taken up for further orders. The original loan agreement has been perused. The address of the JD mentioned therein in the original loan agreement are same as those furnished on record. However, the JD have remained unserved each time with a notice, with report being that they are not residing at the given address.
The AR of the DH must file an affidavit regarding the present address of the JD and also on the aspect that there Page No. 51/23 is no stay from any higher court nor any objection petition under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is pending as on date to his knowledge and no notice thereof has been received.
Put up also for personal appearance of the AR of the DH alongwith power of attorney or resolution in his favour as a last opportunity. The original loan agreement has been seen, compared and is to be returned.
Put up for compliance on 03.10.2012.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/11.09.2012"
"03.10.2012 Present: Ld. Counsel for DH.
AR of the DH is not present stated to be on the way. Ld. Counsel for DH is making a submission that he has already tracedout the fresh address of JD No. 1.
However, same is not being filed even now. Let same be filed alongwith application on or before the NDOH.
Put up only for further proceedings on 16.10.2012. AR of the DH must present in person on the NDOH.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:03.10.2012
"06.12.2012
Present: None.
Both the JDs are reported unserved both modes at both the given addresses as report shows that the address is incomplete and could not be found.
Put up for fresh service on filing of fresh address, if any, as well as on PF/RC to be filed within 15 days from today, returnable for 28.02.2013.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
sk DELHI:06.12.2012"
Page No. 52/23
"15.05.2013
Present: None.
No steps taken for the service of the JD. In the interest of justice, one final opportunity is being extended for filing of PF/RC alongwith fresh address to be filed within 15 working days from today, returnable on 06.08.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:15.05.2013"
"06.08.2013
Present: None.
Matter is being passedover and be recalled at 2.00 PM.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ:WEST: THC DELHI:06.08.2013"
"At 2.45 PM 06.08.2013 Present: Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Counsel for DH.
He submit that no fresh address of the JD is available.
Put up for Orders on 26.08.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:06.08.2013"
__________________________________________________________________________ Tata Motors Vs. Naresh Shokeen Ex. No.23/11 Reference is had to the following ordersheets, which are being reproduced for Page No. 53/23 an easy reference: Ordersheet dated 01.06.2011 (JD no.2 not residing - JD no.1 served) Present: Ld. counsel for DH.
Both JDs unserved.
Fresh notice on PF/RC for 15.09.2011 Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/West/Delhi/01.06.2011 Ordersheet dated 26.09.2011 Present: None.
JD no.1 has been duly served with the notice but he failed to appear and accordingly now let warrant of attachment of articles as per the list, be issued on filing PF. Decree Holder to appear before Ld. ACJ for appointment of bailiff on 03.11.2011 and before Court for report on 03.12.2011. Sd/ SUJATA KOHLI Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge (WEST) DELHI/26.09.2011 Ordersheet dated 03.12.2011 Present: Ld. counsel Sh. Pradeep Kalra for DH.
Warrant remains unexecuted with the report that DH has decided to settle the matter in the office out of Court. Ld. counsel for DH seeking fresh warrant. There is no reason to issue a fresh warrant.
Put up this matter only for settlement/further proceedings on AR of DH be present in person to make the statement. List for further proceedings on 29.02.2012.
Sd/ SUJATA KOHLI Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge (WEST) DELHI/03.12.2011 Ordersheet dated 29.02.2012 Present : Ld. counsel for DH Sh. Pardeep.
AR of DH is not present. It is verbally stated that AR has left the job and particulars of the AR who has left the Job has not been produced. Let the same be produced and present AR should also be Page No. 54/23 present.
Put up this execution for compliance/further proceeding on 02.04.2012.
Sd/ (Sujata Kohli) ADJ (West)/Delhi/29.02.2012 Ordersheet dated 02.04.2012 Present: Ld. counsel for DH Sh. Pradeep alongwith new AR Sh. Deepak Kumar.
Ld. counsel for DH is filing a copy of authorization letter from the company of attorney Sh. S.C. Kulkarni. However, the powery of attorney of the said attorney has not been filed on record.
The application for substitution of authorized representative of the DH company shall be kept in abeyance until the production of the copy of the attorney.
In view of the proceedings in this case, where the court machinery had also been deployed on the execution and the bailiff had visited the spot, however, the officials/previous AR of the DH company stated that the matter was going to be settled out of court. The execution was not effected. Now again it is being simply stated that the matter has not be settled and fresh execution should be issued.
In the meantime, ld. counsel for DH submits that he also has to file the affidavit and as such application for substitution of the AR should be disposed off today itself. The said application cannot be disposed off without the GPA/SPA of the said attorney. The same may be filed alongwith the affidavit of the AR.
Put up this application for further consideration upon filing of the attorney and the affidavit of the Sh. S.C. Kulkarni.
List on 26.04.2012.
Sd/ (Sujata Kohli) ADJ(West)/Delhi/02.04.2012 Ordersheet dated 26.04.2012 Present: Ld. counsel Sh. Pradeep Kumar for Decree Holder.
Ld. counsel for DH is now filing an attested copy of the power of the attorney in favour of Mr.S.C. Kulkarni. Original letter of authorization is being produced, seen and returned.
Now as requested, in the interest of justice, as a last Page No. 55/23 opportunity once again a fresh warrant of attachment shall issue in terms of the last order dated 26.09.2011 on filing PF.
It is now directed to the Decree holder to appear before the Ld. ACJ for appointment of bailiff on 01.05.2012 at 2:00 PM and for report/further proceedings before this court on 28.05.2012.
Sd/ (Sujata Kohli) ADJ(West)/Delhi/26.04.2012 Ordersheet dated 05.10.2012 Present: Ld. Counsel for DH.
Today he is filing the fresh address of JD No. 2. JD No. 1 has already left the given address. Put up only for consideration and further directions on 15.10.2012. Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ:WEST: THC SK DELHI:05.10.2012 Ordersheet dated 23.11.2012 Present: Ld. counsel for DH Sh. Pardeep.
He has furnished the fresh address of JD no.2 Sh. Dayanand as per application. However, no list of movable or immovable property of JD no.2 has been furnished.
Let the same be filed within one week alongwith PF and warrant of attachment to be issued only in respect of the movable property in the first instance.
DH is directed to appear before Ld. ACJ for appointment of bailiff on 01.12.2012 and for report/further proceedings before this court on 12.12.2012.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/23.11.2012 Ordersheet dated 12.12.2012 Present: Ld. counsel for DH Sh. Pardeep.
Report of execution has returned, as per which execution has not been effected. The detailed report would require further consideration by the court.
Page No. 56/23In the meantime, ld. counsel for DH is also filing another application to furnish the fresh address of JD no.1 and praying for fresh warrant of attachment in respect of the JD no.1 as well.
Put up only for further orders on both aspects on 15.12.2012 at 4:00 PM.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/12.12.2012 Ordersheet dated 15.12.2012 Present: None.
Matter taken up for further Orders. Let warrants of attachment be issued against both the JDs at the fresh addresses furnished with respect to movable properties in the first instance as per list on filing of PF to be filed within seven days from today.
DH is directed to appear before Ld. ACJ on 21.01.2013. Put up before this Court for report on 04.02.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:15.12.2012
Ordersheet dated 04.02.2013 Present: Ms. Ritu Singh, Proxy Counsel for Ld. Counsel for DH.
Warrants of attachment have returned unexecuted as per the report of Bailiff that there are "no such person" on the given address.
In the circumstances, an application U/O 21 Rule 37 CPC seeking arrest warrants against the JD has also been moved.
However, since neither the main counsel nor AR are present to press this application, put up only for consideration and further directions on 25.02.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:04.02.2013
Page No. 57/23
Ordersheet dated 25.02.2013 Present: None.
Application U/O 21 Rule 37 CPC seeking issuance of warrants of arrest against JD No. 1 taken up for further Orders.
In view of the earlier reports of Bailiff that there is "no such person" found at the given address, and even at the fresh address, there is no question for issuance of warrants of arrest as prayed with regard to JD No. 1. Firstly, the address of the JD No. 1 has to be ascertained, and even thereafter it may be the case of issuance of attachment of warrants at the correct address.
As regard JD No. 2, there is no application on record. Put up the execution petition only for further proceedings on 10.04.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:25.02.2013
Ordersheet dated 10.04.2013 Present: Ms. Ritu Singh, Proxy Counsel for Counsel for DH.
She is making a submission that application seeking warrant of arrest is already pending on record.
However, attention of proxy counsel is drawn to the last Order 25.02.2013, as it is very clear that neither the duly appointed AR of the DH nor main counsel find out the fresh address of the JD No. 1 for the execution.
However, in the interest of justice, one final opportunity is being afforded for the appearance of the AR of the DH, and In default, execution petition would be dismissed for nonprosecution on the NDOH straightaway without any further Orders.
List on 18.07.2013.
In the meantime, let a Court Notice be issued to DH Company directly alongwith copy of this Order.
Sd/
Page No. 58/23
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:10.04.2013
AT 11.00 AM
Ordersheet datd 18.07.2013
Present: None.
None has appeared even on this second call. Put up for Orders alongwith other similar matters on 30.07.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:18.07.2013
(Though the address of the JDs as on memo of parties was that of Delhi, notice was got issued at Mumbai address, without moving for transfer of the decree).
TATA MOTORS Vs. NARESH SHOKEEN "28.02.2014 Present: One Sh. Johnson Andrews, present on behalf of the DH claiming himself to be the Authorized Representative of the DH.
He has filed an affidavit on behalf of the DH, however, for some reason, he is not able to produce the original Power of Attorney in his favour nor any Board Resolution.
Heard.
Put up for Orders on the date already fixed.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
Additional District Judge
SK West: Delhi:28.02.2014"
Vs. Pradeep Shokeen Ex.No.76/11 Reference is had to the following ordersheets, which are being reproduced Page No. 59/23 for an easy reference: Ordersheet dated 09.11.2011 Present: Ld. counsel for DH.
PF and RC not filed.
In the interest of justice, one more opportunity extended. PF and RC be filed within one week.
List for service on 01.02.2012.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/09.11.2011 Ordersheet dated 01.02.2012 Present: Ld. counsel for DH Sh. Pardeep.
The notice issued to the JD returned with a report unclaimed as per Registered AD. Report is ambiguous. However, ld. counsel for DH maintains that JD is very well residing at the given address and that he had also issued a preexecution notice, JD which has been duly served. The preexecution notice and registered AD envelope is bearing only a report 'Refused'. DH may file an affidavit alongwith attested copy of the Resolution/Power of Attorney of the AR regarding the present address of the JD as claimed and also about his properties as on date within 2 weeks subject to which matter will come up for further directions on 22.02.2012.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/01.02.2012 Ordersheet dated 22.02.2012 Present : None.
Case taken up for further consideration. Record perused.
Let warrant of attachment be issued against the JD in respect of the immovable property mentioned at the address given on filing of PF, to appear before Ld. ACJ on 19.03.2012 and for report of execution before this court on 31.03.2012.
Sd/ (Sujata Kohli) ADJ (West)/Delhi/22.02.2012 Ordersheet dated 23.08.2012 Present: Sh. Pradeep, Ld. Counsel for DH.
Ld. Counsel for DH is filing an application for warrant of attachment.
Page No. 60/23In view of the previous report of the Bailiff, there was obstruction to the execution.
SHO concerned is directed to extend the police aid as and when required by the Bailiff in the next execution for which fresh warrants of attachment be issued against JD on filing of PF.
DH is directed to appear before Ld. ACJ on 04.09.2012. Put up for report on 12.09.2012.
PF be filed within three days from today. A copy of this Order be sent to SHO concerned.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:23.08.2012
Ordersheet dated 12.09.2012 Present: Ld. counsel for DH Pardeep Kahler.
As per the bailiff report as submitted by the ld. counsel for DH, the JD has settled the entire matter with the DH and pursuant to which a sum of Rs.50,000/ has been paid by way of cash and the remaining amount has been paid by postdated cheques, however, which are remaining to be encashed.
As such let this execution be kept in abeyance till encashment as requested.
List for further proceedings on 10.12.2012.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/12.09.2012 Ordersheet dated 10.12.2012 Present: None.
List again on 06.03.2013.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI Ordersheet dated 06.03.2013 Present: None.
Put up only for further proceedings on 22.05.2013.
Page No. 61/23
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:06.03.2013
Ordersheet dated 22.05.2013 Present: Ld. counsel for DH Mr. Pardeep.
Ever since 12.09.2012, case had been settled and till date, ld. counsel for DH is stating that some amount i.e. Rs.10,000/ is still remaining unpaid by the JD.
At this stage after some discussion, it seems that counsel for plaintiff is not having complete instructions about the case and he has not even brought the file.
Let AR of the DH be present in person on the next date alongwith his affidavit about the actual status of the settlement in order to dispose of the execution petition.
List on 19.07.2013.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/22.05.2013 Ordersheet dated 19.07.2013 Present: Sh. Pradeep Kalher, Counsel for DH.
Ld. Counsel for DH submits that he wants to withdraw the present matter as DH Company has already received the payment of Rs. 4 lacs from the JD.
He has been inquired about the kind of settlement and about the particulars of the payment i.e. date and also the papers relating to the settlement/payment, but he is not having the same today.
His separate statement is also being recorded. Let documents with respect to the settlement i.e. statement of account and copy of receipt, be produced on the NDOH.
Subject to which, put up for Orders on 30.07.2013. In case, there is no document on the NDOH, matter would be taken up for Orders alongwith the similar matters.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:19.07.2013
Page No. 62/23
__________________________________________________________________________ Vs. Gurvinder Singh - Ex. No.86/10 Reference is had to the following ordersheets, which are being reproduced for an easy reference: Extracts of the Ordersheet dated 31.03.2011 (passed by Ld. Predecessor) "The receiver is also directed to state in his report the name of the person from whom the vehicle is repossessed and the relation he has with the respondent.
The receiver shall submit his report, photographs and inventory list duly prepared, visavis the vehicle within three days from the date of possession of the said vehicle. The Receiver shall deposit the keys of the said vehicle in the court. The receiver shall also mention the name of the person from whom the vehicle was repossessed.
The vehicle shall thereafter be dealt with, in accordance with further orders of this court in the present execution."
Sd/ (HEMANI MALHOTRA) ADJ/DELHI/21.03.2011 Ordersheet dated 13.05.2011 Present: AR of the DH in person.
Steps in terms of the last order not taken. In the interest of justice, one last opportunity extended. Notice of execution petition be issued on filing of PF and RC. Be filed within one week.
List for 11.08.2011.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/DELHI Ordersheet dated 11.08.2011 (second ordersheet) At 2 PM Present: None.
JD has not appeared since morning despite repeated calls. As such, warrants of attachment be issued against the movable property of the JD on filing of PF and RC.
DH is directed to appear before the Ld. ACJ for appointment of bailiff on 16.08.2011 and before this court for report on 29.08.2011.
Sd/ Page No. 63/23 (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/DELHI Ordersheet dated 12.07.2012 Present: Proxy Counsel Sh. Vikram Shukla, counsel for Decree Holder.
No steps have been taken by the DH for issuance of Warrant of Attachment. No sufficient cause exists for adjournment.
In the interest of justice, one more opportunity is extended subject to deposit of costs of Rs. 2,000/with DLSA. The receipt of costs be filed alongwith PF/RC within 7 days from today and subject to which fresh Warrant of Attachment shall be issued. DH to appear before Ld. ACJ on 23/08/2012 and to come up for report on 03/09/2012.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI/12.07.2012 Ordersheet dated 17.11.2012 Present: Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Proxy Counsel for Ld. Counsel for DH.
Adjournment is being sought by him as main counsel is not available today stated to be busy in another Court.
In the interest of justice, put up this execution only for compliance of previous Order on 15.01.2013. Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ:WEST: THC SK DELHI:17.11.2012 Ordersheet dated 15.01.2013 Present: Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Ld. Counsel for DH.
Matter was listed for compliance of previous order dated 12.07.2012.
Ld. Counsel for DH has filed an application for waiver of cost. Heard.
No ground is made for waiver, however, in the interest of justice, cost is being reduced to Rs. 1000/. Let same be deposited with DLSA and receipt of DLSA alongwith PF be placed on record within seven days from today, subject to which fresh warrants of attachment be issued against the JD with respect to movable properties in the first instance as per list.
Page No. 64/23List of movable and immovable properties be filed, if not filed, alongwith PF.
DH is directed to appear before Ld. ACJ on 14.02.2013. Put up before this Court for report on 28.02.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:15.01.2013
Ordersheet dated 10.07.2013 Present: Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Proxy Counsel for Counsel for DH.
He is seeking some more time to trace out the fresh address of the JD. Though it is stated by way of a separate application that the vehicle financed by the DH is very well in the possession of the JD.
In the interest of justice, time is granted. Put up only for further proceedings on 17.09.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:10.07.2013
Ordersheet dated 21.11.2013 Present: Proxy counsel Ms. Ritu Singh for main counsel for DH.
None for JD.
No fresh address of JD is being traced out. Let this matter come up for final orders alongwith the other execution matters of Tata Motors Ltd. on 25.11.2013.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE WEST/DELHI/21.11.2013 ________________________________________________________________________ Vs. Manjit Malik Ex. 85/10 Reference is had to the following ordersheets, which are being reproduced for an easy reference: Page No. 65/23 Extracts of the Ordersheet dated 21.01.2010 (Passed by Ld. Predecessor) "The receiver shall submit his report, photographs, inventory list duly prepared and keys, visavis the vehicle within three days from the date of possession of the said vehicle in the court.
The vehicle shall thereafter be dealt with, in accordance with further orders of this court in the present suit."
Sd/ (HEMANI MALHOTRA) ADJ/DELHI/21.01.2010 Ordersheet dated 10.02.2011 Present: Ld. counsel for DH.
The DH is directed to file an affidavit as to whether the JD is residing at the given address.
Put up for filing of affidavit on 21.03.2011.
Sd/ (HEMANI MALHOTRA) ADJ/DELHI/10.02.2011 Ordersheet dated 13.05.2011 Present: AR of the DH in person.
Affidavit in terms of the last order with respect to the residence of JD not filed. Be filed by the next date.
List for further proceedings on 11.08.2011.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/DELHI Ordersheet dated 11.08.2011 Present: Sh. Pradeep Kumar, proxy counsel for DH.
Proxy counsel for DH seeking more time to file affidavit. In the interest of justice, one opportunity is extended.
List again on 23.08.2011.
In default, the execution petition will be dismissed.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/DELHI Ordersheet dated 23.08.2011 Present: None.
Affidavit in terms of the previous order not being filed. In the interest of justice, final opportunity is extended.
List on 08.11.2011.
Page No. 66/23Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/DELHI Ordersheet dated 17.07.2012 Present: None.
Affidavit not filed in terms of previous directions till date. Execution is not being pursued properly, however, in the interest of justice, one final opportunity is being extended.
Put up once again for filing of the affidavit on 24.09.2012.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:17.07.2012
Ordersheet dated 15.12.2012 Present: Sh. Vikram Shukla, Proxy Counsel for Sh. Sunil Sehrawat, Ld. Counsel for DH.
AR is not present, but his affidavit is being filed. AR is stated to be in Mumbai. No sufficient cause is being assigned for nonappearance.
However, in the interest of justice, since proxy counsel, under the instructions received from main counsel Sh. Sunil Sehrawat, is pressing for application for issuance of warrants of attachment on the address given herein, taking his oral statement at bar, let warrants of attachment be issued against the JD with respect to movable properties in the first instance on filing of PF to be filed alongwith list of movable and immovable properties within seven days from today.
DH is directed to appear before Ld. ACJ on 09.01.2013. Put up before this Court for report on 24.01.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:15.12.2012
Ordersheet dated 24.01.2013 Present: Proxy counsel Vikram Shukla for counsel for DH.
Bailiff was reported to have been a casual leave on the day when the execution was to be done.
As requested, let fresh warrant of attachment be issued against the JD initially with respect to movable properties in terms of the Page No. 67/23 previous order dated 15.12.2012. PF be filed within 7 days.
DH is directed to appear for Ld. ACJ on 18.02.2013. Put up for report before this Court on 04.03.2013.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:24.01.2013
Ordersheet dated 04.03.2013 Present: Ld. Counsel for DH Sh. Pardeep.
As per record of bailiff, there was obstruction/resistance to execution by the wife of JD and also by JD. Now application seeking police aid has been filed.
Heard.
AR of the DH whose affidavit has been filed with this application and whose sole statement has been recorded by the bailiff, is not present. Let AR/deponent be present in person for further inquiry and also direction be given to the bailiff to appear in person to explain his report on the next date.
List on 21.03.2013 at 2:15 PM.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
DV DELHI:04.03.2013
Ordersheet dated 04.06.2013 Present: Proxy counsel for DH Sh. Vikram Shukla.
Ld. counsel for JD Sh. Bimlesh Kumar.
Bailiff has furnished his detailed report. As per which, certain amount of payment has been received by the DH on the spot. Ld. counsel who is appearing for JD is stating that the payment were extracted from the brother of the JD. There was no good reason available as to why the JD was not present before the executing court.
No further submissions shall be entertained until the JD is present in person.
In the meantime, proxy counsel for DH under instructions has Page No. 68/23 stated that some of the cheques have been encashed and only some are remaining.
As requested, matter is being adjourned for statement of the AR and further proceedings on 10.07.2013. JD is directed to remain present in person on NDOH.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/04.06.2013 Ordersheet dated 10.07.2013 Present: Proxy counsel Sh. Pardeep for DH alongwith Sh. Manoj Kumar stating himself to be the AR of the company. Ld. counsel for JD no.1 Sh. Bimlesh Kumar and associate Sh.
Sushil Kumar alongwith JD no.1.
None for JD no.2.
However, it is taken note that the JD no.2 is being informed to be a paternal cousin of JD no.1 but there is no official/legal appearance on behalf of the JD no.2 as on date.
There is no application on record for JD no.1 in respect of the verbal submissions made on the last date. However, proxy counsel for DH on the other hand is making a submission that both the cheques were received through execution have been dishonored on account of stop payment and even a notice under Section 138 NI Act has been issued in this respect.
However, it is once again noted that the duly appointed AR of the DH is not present to make any statement.
At this stage, Ld. counsel for JD no.1 is seeking time to file vakalatnamaa and application.
Matter is being adjourned only for further proceedings on 17.09.2013.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/10.07.2013 Ordersheet dated 21.11.2013 Present: Proxy counsel Ms. Ritu Singh for main counsel for DH.
Proxy counsel Ms. Anju for main counsel for JD. It is being stated by the proxy counsel for DH under instructions that matter has been settled. Neither AR of the DH nor the main counsels are present. Same has been the position on the last date as well.
Page No. 69/23Proxy counsel for JD states that she is not able to have contact with the JD. Let this matter come up for final orders alongwith the other execution matters of Tata Motors Ltd. on 25.11.2013.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE WEST/DELHI/21.11.2013 Reliance Capital Ltd. Vs. Mr. Jugal Kishore & Ors. Ex. No.34/12 Reference is had to the following ordersheets, which are being reproduced for an easy reference: Ordersheet dated 14.09.2012 Present: Ms. Kamini Srivastva, Proxy Counsel for Ld. Counsel for DH.
Fresh execution petition received. It be checked and registered.
The award in question has been passed on 02.06.2011. Let a notice of this execution petition be issued to JD on filing of PF/RC to be filed within seven days from today, returnable on 30.11.2012.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:14.09.2012
Ordersheet dated 30.11.2012 Present: None.
AD remained unserved as per the reports. Put up only for fresh service on filing of PF/RC as well as on fresh address, if any, returnable for 26.02.2013.
Steps be taken within seven days from today.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:30.11.2012
Ordersheet dated 26.02.2013 Present: Sh. Lokesh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for DH.
He is seeking some more time to verify the fresh address of the JD.
As such, execution petition would be listed only for further Page No. 70/23 proceedings on 01.04.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:26.02.2013
Ordersheet dated 01.04.2013 Present: None.
No steps taken.
No fresh address also filed.
However, in the interest of justice, put up only for further proceedings now on 18.07.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:01.04.2013
AT 11.00 AM
Ordersheet dated 18.07.2013 Present: None.
None has appeared even on this second call. Put up for Orders alongwith other similar matters on 30.07.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:18.07.2013
_________________________________________________________________________ Vs. Ajay Kumar Ex. No.39/12 Reference is had to the following ordersheets, which are being reproduced for an easy reference: Ordersheet dated 19.09.2012 Present: Ld. Counsel for DH.
Page No. 71/23Fresh execution petition received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
Let notice be issued on filing of PF/RC to be filed within seven days from today on the given addresses, returnable on 30.11.2012.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:19.09.2012
Ordersheet dated 30.11.2012 Present: None.
JD remained unserved as per the detailed report both ways. Put up for fresh service on filing of PF/RC as well as on fresh address, if any, returnable for 26.02.2013.
Steps be taken within 15 days from today.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:30.11.2012
Ordersheet dated 26.02.2013 Present: Sh. Lokesh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for DH.
He is seeking some more time to verify the fresh address of the JD.
As such, execution petition would be listed only for further proceedings on 01.04.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:26.02.2013
Ordersheet dated 01.04.2013 Present: None.
No steps taken.
No fresh address also filed.
However, in the interest of justice, put up only for further Page No. 72/23 proceedings now on 18.07.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:01.04.2013
AT 11.00 AM
Ordersheet dated 18.07.2013 Present: None.
None has appeared even on this second call. Put up for Orders alongwith other similar matters on 30.07.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:18.07.2013
__________________________________________________________________________ Vs. Ajay Kumar Ex.No.37/12 Reference is had to the following ordersheets, which are being reproduced for an easy reference: Ordersheet dated 19.09.2012 Present: Ld. Counsel for DH.
Fresh execution petition received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
Let notice be issued on filing of PF/RC to be filed within seven days from today on the given addresses, returnable on 30.11.2012.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:19.09.2012
Ordersheet dated 30.11.2012 Present: None.
JD remained unserved as per the detailed report both ways. Put up for fresh service on filing of PF/RC as well as on fresh Page No. 73/23 address, if any, returnable for 26.02.2013.
Steps be taken within 15 days from today.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:30.11.2012
Ordersheet dated 26.02.2013 Present: Sh. Lokesh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for DH.
He is seeking some more time to verify the fresh address of the JD.
As such, execution petition would be listed only for further proceedings on 01.04.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:26.02.2013
Ordersheet dated 01.04.2013 Present: None.
No steps taken.
No fresh address also filed.
However, in the interest of justice, put up only for further proceedings now on 18.07.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:01.04.2013
AT 11.00 AM
Ordersheet dated 18.07.2013 Present: None.
None has appeared even on this second call.
Page No. 74/23Put up for Orders alongwith other similar matters on 30.07.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:18.07.2013
__________________________________________________________________________ The Royal Bank Vs. D.K. Dua Ex. No.110/11 Reference is had to the following ordersheets, which are being reproduced for an easy reference: (AR did not accompany the bailiff to the spot and stated to him verbally that the JD had left the given address) Ordersheet dated 22.10.2011 Present: Ld. counsel Sh. Puneet Bhalla for DH. Nazir report perused.
Put up only for further orders on the aspect that whether the warrant of attachment will be issued or there is any scope of issuing any notice. Put up for orders today itself at 4:00 PM.
SD/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI/22.10.2011 Ordersheet dated 22.10.2011 at 4:00 PM Present: None.
Execution petition kept for further directions. Record perused. Let warrant of attachment be issued against the JD w.r.t the movable property as per list, in the first instance on filing PF. DH to appear before LD.ACJ for appointment of bailiff on 21.11.2011 and to come up for report before this Court on 16.12.2011.
Sd/ (Sujata Kohli) ADJ (West)/Delhi/22.10.2011 Ordersheet dated 16.12.2011 (JD left the premises) Present: None.
Put up only for further proceeding on 07.03.2012.
Sd/ (Sujata Kohli) ADJ (West)/Delhi/16.12.2011 Ordersheet dated 07.03.2012 Page No. 75/23 Present : Ld. counsel for DH.
As per the report of the bailiff, the AR came to the bailiff and informed him that premises lying locked and as such he need not to go to the spot. As such AR should present in the court on the next date.
List for the appearance of the AR on 29.05.2012.
Sd/ (Sujata Kohli) ADJ (West)/Delhi/07.03.2012 Ordersheet dated 29.05.2012 Present: Ld. counsel for DH Sh. Sachin Garg.
Ld. counsel for DH submits that the JD is reported to have been served.
Put up only for further proceedings on 04.09.2012.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI/29.05.2012 Ordersheet dated 22.08.2013 Present: Sh. Ashok Kumar, Proxy Counsel for Sh. Puneet Bhalla, Main Counsel for DH.
Today, proxy counsel is only stating that original DH has sold off his all assets and liabilities including the subject matter of the present execution petition, and same has been taken over by M/s Phoenix Limited from The Royal Bank of Scotland. However, no supporting document is being placed on record.
In the meantime, a notice issued to the JD has also returned unserved with the report that JD is not residing at the given address.
As requested, matter is being adjourned only for further proceedings and for production of original documents on 05.10.2013.
It is also made clear since there is no application, the execution petition would have to be closed straightaway on the NDOH.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
Additional District Judge
SK West: Delhi:22.08.2013
Ordersheet dated 05.10.2013 Page No. 76/23 Present: None.
In view of all the previous proceedings of this case, put up this execution petition for Orders on 19.10.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
Additional District Judge
SK West: Delhi:05.10.2013
__________________________________________________________________________ Vs. Babita Batura Ex. No. 111/11 Reference is had to the following ordersheets, which are being reproduced for an easy reference: Ordersheet dated 22.10.2011 Present: Ld. counsel Sh. Puneet Bhalla for DH. Nazir report perused.
Put up only for further orders on the aspect that whether the warrant of attachment will be issued or there is any scope of issuing any notice.
Put up for orders today itself at 4:00 PM.
SD/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI/22.10.2011 Ordersheet dated 22.10.2011 at 4:00 PM Present: None.
Execution petition kept for further directions. Record perused. Let warrant of attachment be issued against the JD w.r.t the movable property as per list, in the first instance on filing PF. DH to appear before LD.ACJ for appointment of bailiff on 21.11.2011 and to come up for report before this Court on 16.12.2011.
Sd/ (Sujata Kohli) ADJ (West)/Delhi/22.10.2011 Ordersheet dated 16.12.2011 Present: None.
Put up only for further proceeding on 07.03.2012.
Sd/ (Sujata Kohli) ADJ (West)/Delhi/16.12.2011 Page No. 77/23 Ordersheet dated 07.03.2012 Present : Ld. counsel for DH.
As per the report of the bailiff, the AR came to the bailiff and informed him that premises lying locked and as such he need not to go to the spot. As such AR should present in the court on the next date.
List for the appearance of the AR on 29.05.2012.
Sd/ (Sujata Kohli) ADJ (West)/Delhi/07.03.2012 Ordersheet dated 29.05.2012 Present: Ld. counsel for DH Sh. Sachin Garg.
Ld. counsel for DH submits that the JD is reported to have been served.
Put up only for further proceedings on 04.09.2012.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI/29.05.2012 Ordersheet dated 22.08.2013 Present: Sh. Ashok Kumar, Proxy Counsel for Sh. Puneet Bhalla, Main Counsel for DH.
Today, proxy counsel is only stating that original DH has sold off his all assets and liabilities including the subject matter of the present execution petition, and same has been taken over by M/s Phoenix Limited from The Royal Bank of Scotland. However, no supporting document is being placed on record.
In the meantime, a notice issued to the JD has also returned unserved with the report that JD is not residing at the given address.
As requested, matter is being adjourned only for further proceedings and for production of original documents on 05.10.2013.
It is also made clear since there is no application, the execution petition would have to be closed straightaway on the NDOH.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
Additional District Judge
Page No. 78/23
SK West: Delhi:22.08.2013
Ordersheet dated 05.10.2013 Present: None.
In view of all the previous proceedings of this case, put up this execution petition for Orders on 19.10.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
Additional District Judge
SK West: Delhi:05.10.2013
__________________________________________________________________________ Vs. Paresh Modi Ex.No.102/11 Reference is had to the following ordersheets, which are being reproduced for an easy reference: Ordersheet dated 22.10.2011 Present: Ld. counsel Sh. Puneet Bhalla for DH. Nazir report perused.
Put up only for further orders on the aspect that whether the warrant of attachment will be issued or there is any scope of issuing any notice. Put up for orders today itself at 4:00 PM.
SD/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI/22.10.2011 Ordersheet dated 16.12.2011 Present: None.
Put up only for further proceeding on 07.03.2012.
Sd/ (Sujata Kohli) ADJ (West)/Delhi/16.12.2011 Ordersheet dated 07.03.2012 Present : Ld. counsel for DH Sh. Sachin Garg.
None for JD.
Although no doubt, the petition has been filed within two years of the award.
In the interest of justice, it will be appropriate to issue a notice Page No. 79/23 in the first instance on filing of PF/RC, to which ld. counsel for DH has also no objection. Steps to be taken within 7 working days from today, returnable for 29.05.2012.
Sd/ (Sujata Kohli) ADJ (West)/Delhi/07.03.2012 Ordersheet dated 29.05.2012 Present: Ld. counsel for DH Sh. Sachin Garg.
Ld. counsel for DH submits that the JD is reported to have been served.
Let the matter be kept awaited for personal presence of JD till 12:30 PM.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI/29.05.2012 12:30 PM Present: As before.
None has appeared for JD.
In view of the submissions of ld. counsel for DH, put up this execution only for further proceedings on 04.09.2012.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI/29.05.2012 Ordersheet dated 13.03.2013 Present: None.
Let Court Notice be issued to Ld. Counsel for DH for the NDOH.
Put up only for further proceedings on 17.05.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:13.03.2013
AT 2.40 PM
Ordersheet dated 30.08.2013 Page No. 80/23 Present: None.
None has appeared on behalf of the DH in this execution since morning in spite of repeated calls, and not even in spite of due service of Court Notice.
Put up this execution petition for final Orders on 31.08.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
Additional District Judge
SK West: Delhi:30.08.2013
__________________________________________________________________________ Vs. C. Nagpal Ex. No.104/11 Reference is had to the following ordersheets, which are being reproduced for an easy reference: Ordersheet dated 07.03.2012 Present: Ld. counsel for DH Sh. Sachin Garg.
None for JD.
Since the JD has already made some part payment, also as reported. There is ample scope of settlement.
In the interest of justice, let notice be issued in the first instance on PF/RC, to be filed within 7 days, returnable for 29.05.2012.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI/07.03.2012 Ordersheet dated 29.05.2012 Present: Ld. counsel for DH Sh. Sachin Garg.
Ld. counsel for DH submits that the JD is reported to have been served.
Let the matter be kept awaited for personal presence of JD till 12:30 PM.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI/29.05.2012 12:30 PM Present: As before.
None has appeared for JD.
In view of the submissions of ld. counsel for DH, put up this execution only for further proceedings on 04.09.2012.
Sd/ Page No. 81/23 (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI/29.05.2012 Ordersheet dated 13.03.2013 Present: None.
Let Court Notice be issued to Ld. Counsel for DH for the NDOH.
Put up only for further proceedings on 17.05.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:13.03.2013
AT 2.40 PM
Ordersheet dated 30.08.2013 Present: None.
None has appeared on behalf of the DH in this execution since morning in spite of repeated calls, and not even in spite of due service of Court Notice.
Put up this execution petition for final Orders on 31.08.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
Additional District Judge
SK West: Delhi:30.08.2013
_________________________________________________________________________ HDFC Bank VS. Suresh Kumar Ex. No.157/10 Reference is had to the following ordersheets, which are being reproduced for an easy reference: Ordersheet dated 11.06.2009 (passed by Ld. Predecessor) Present: Sh. Ashok Kumar advocate for the decree holder Fresh execution petition is already received. It be checked and registered.
Execution petition pertains to the Award of an arbitrator dated 13.01.2009. The verification clause of the execution is blank. In order to Page No. 82/23 ascertain whether any objection is filed or pending against the Award. Let a notice be issued to the judgment debtors of this execution petition on filing of PF & RC for 23.07.2009.
Sd/ Ashwani Sarpal ADJ/DELHI(West)/11.06.2009 Ordersheet dated 23.07.2009 Present: None.
Steps not taken. Let Decree Holder to file the process fee for issuance of notice to the Judgment Debtors within 7 days.
Put up this matter for service of Judgment Debtors and appearance of Decree Holder on 19.09.2009.
Sd/ Ashwani Sarpal ADJ/DELHI(WEST) At this stage, Sh. Shakunt Vyas, counsel for the petitioner appeared. He is informed about the order and next date of hearing. Put up on the date already fixed.
Sd/ Ashwani Sarpal ADJ/DELHI(WEST) 23.07.2009 Ordersheet dated 19.09.2009 Present: None.
As per report Judgment Debtor no.1 is missing from his residence for the last two years. Process issued to Judgment Debtor no.2 not received back. A fresh notice of execution be issued to respondent no.2 on PF for 19.11.2009. New address of Judgment Debtor no.1 be also supplied.
Sd/ Ashwani Sarpal ADJ/DELHI(WEST) 19.09.2009 Ordersheet dated 19.11.2009 Present: None.
Put up this matter for appearance on behalf of Decree Holder on 14.01.2010 as on the last date of hearing also no one appeared for decree holder. Despite taking time, decree holder has not Page No. 83/23 supplied a new address of Judgment Debtor no.2. A warning is also given that on the next date of hearing if no one appeared for the decree holder on the first call then the execution shall be dismissed in default without even any pass over.
Sd/ Ashwani Sarpal ADJ/DELHI(WEST) 19.11.2009 Ordersheet dated 14.01.2010 Present: Sh. Tarun Kamboj, advocate for DH.
Counsel wants to seek instructions. Put up on 16.01.2010 for further proceedings.
Sd/ Ashwani Sarpal ADJ/DELHI(WEST) Ordersheet dated 18.02.2010 Present: Sh. Tarun Kambhoj, counsel for decree holder.
Notice sent to judgment debtor no.1 received back with the report that he is not residing at the address for the last two years. Notice sent to judgment debtor no.2 not served.
Issue fresh notice of the execution to the judgment debtor no.2 on filing of PF for 01.04.2010. Decree holder to confirm the fact whether judgment debtor no.1 is residing at the address or not and if he is found residing then take the dasti process otherwise file his fresh address.
Sd/ Ashwani Sarpal ADJ/DELHI(WEST) 18.02.2010 Ordersheet dated 01.04.2010 Present: Counsel for decree holder.
Affidavit of AR of the decree holder filed in which, it is mentioned that on behalf of judgment debtor no.1 process was not accepted and avoided whereas notice of the execution has been refused by the judgment debtor2 as per report of the process server.
Issue warrant of attachment of movable properties of the judgment debtor on PF and put up this matter on 09.04.2010 before Administrative Civil Judge for appointment of bailiff and report of bailiff is awaited for 22.05.2010.
Sd/ Page No. 84/23 Ashwani Sarpal ADJ/DELHI(WEST) Ordersheet dated 22.05.2010 Present: Sh. Tarun Kambhoj, counsel for DH.
Report not received. It is awaited for next date. An application for attachment of another vehicle of JD is moved.
Put up on 24.07.2010 for consideration on this application.
Sd/ Ashwani Sarpal ADJ/DELHI(WEST) Ordersheet dated 24.07.2010 Present: Sh. Tarun Kamboj, counsel for the decree holder.
Warrant of attachment received back unexecuted with the report that judgment debtor had left the address about 2 ½ years back and his present whereabouts are not known even to his family members.
Let fresh address of the judgment debtor be furnished on 04.09.2010.
Sd/ Ashwani Sarpal ADJ/DELHI(WEST) Ordersheet dated 17.08.2010 Present: Sh. Pawan Chaudhary, proxy counsel advocate for decree holder.
File taken up today on the application for attachment of vehicle of the judgment debtor. Alongwith the application, a certificate of registration of the vehicle HTV bearing No.HR55B1846 is attached which point out that this vehicle belongs to judgment debtor.
Let warrant of attachment of the vehicle bearing No.HR55B1846 be issued for 04.09.2010 the date already fixed for PF subject tot he condition that the bailiff shall attach the vehicle only when this vehicle is available within the jurisdiction of Delhi state. To appear before the Administrative Civil Judge, Delhi on 18.08.2010 for appointment of bailiff.
Sd/ Ashwani Sarpal ADJ/DELHI(WEST) Ordersheet dated 04.09.2010 Page No. 85/23 Present: Sh. Pawan Chaudhary, proxy counsel for decree holder.
Warrant of attachment could not be executed. Counsel wants date for moving some application. Put up this matter on 30.10.2010 for further proceedings.
Sd/ Ashwani Sarpal ADJ/DELHI(WEST) Ordersheet dated 22.01.2011 Present: Ld. counsel for DH.
Warrant of attachment received back unexecuted. Put up for further proceedings on 22.02.2011.
Sd/ (HEMANI MALHOTRA) ADJ/DELHI(WEST) Ordersheet dated 21.05.2011 Present: Ld. counsel for DH.
Earlier, warrants of attachment have been received back unexecuted in January 2011. Thereafter, there was no fresh warrants directed to be issued.
Today, ld. counsel for DH seeks some time to move an application. List for F.P. On 29.08.2011.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI 21.05.2011 Ordersheet dated 04.11.2011 Present: None.
No application moved.
Put up only for further proceedings on 25.01.2012.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI Ordersheet dated 25.01.2012 Present: Proxy counsel Sh. Manish Tripathi for counsel for DH.
Neither AR nor main counsel is available. Execution is not being persued at all, in fact it was last taken up in the month of May and November 2011 when none appeared.
Ld. counsel for DH submitted that arrest warrants be issued Page No. 86/23 against the JD, without moving any such application.
Half hearted prosecution like this is likely to entail dismissal for nonprosecution.
However, in the interest of justice, one last and final opportunity is given on condition that either the main counsel or AR shall appear on next date after taken necessary steps.
Put up for further proceedings on 05.03.2012.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI Ordersheet dated 05.03.2012.
Present: Ld. counsel for DH Sh. Vikas Anand.
Ld. counsel for DH is praying for fresh warrant of attachment. However, he has submitted that since the vehicle in question is already hypothecated with Citi Bank. He does not press on warrant of attachment regarding the said vehicle.
Now he prays for the same with regard to the list of movable property already furnished on record. As per the record, on the last of warrant of attachment, none had appeared for the DH and for which reasons it could not be executed.
Let fresh warrant of attachment be issued on filing of PF with regard to the movable property only in the given address. PF to be filed within 7 days.
To appear before Ld. ACJ on 02.04.2012 and to report before this court on 05.05.2012.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI Ordersheet dated 05.05.2012 Present: Counsel for DH Sh. Manish alongwith party.
Warrants of attachment remained unexecuted. As per report JD is not found residing at the given address.
Put up for furnishing fresh/correct address of JD and as such listed only for further proceedings on 09.08.2012.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI Ordersheet dated 17.09.2012 Present: Sh. Ajay Kumar, Ld. Counsel for DH.
No fresh address has been furnished. As requested, some more time is being extended to file the Page No. 87/23 same.
In the meantime, proxy counsel also sought for issuance of fresh warrants of attachment on the same address.
However, as per report of Bailiff, same is not possible. Put up only for further proceedings on 30.11.2012.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:17.09.2012
Ordersheet dated 30.11.2012 Present: None.
Put up only for further proceedings again on 26.02.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:30.11.2012
Ordersheet dated 26.02.2013 Present: Sh. Vikas Anand, Ld. Counsel for DH.
He is seeking some more time for furnishing the fresh address of the JD.
In the interest of justice, matter is being adjourned for the same purpose for 12.04.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:26.02.2013
Ordersheet dated 12.04.2013 Present: Sh. Manish Tripathi, Proxy Counsel for Counsel for DH.
Fresh address of JD has not been filed till date, in spite of repeated dates fixed for the same purpose. Even neither main counsel nor duly appointed AR are present to pursue the execution, and same was the position on the last dates as well.
Put up this execution petition now only for further Orders on 16.04.2013.
Page No. 88/23
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:12.04.2013
__________________________________________________________________________ Vs. Shanti Construction Ex. NO.34/11 Reference is had to the following ordersheets, which are being reproduced for an easy reference: Ordersheet dated 27.04.2011 (Passed by Ld. Predecessor) Fresh execution petition received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
Present: Ld. counsel for DH.
Issue notice of the execution petition to the JD on filing of PF/RC, for 08.07.2011. Nazir is also directed to file his report on the said date.
Sd/ (HEMANI MALHOTRA) ADJ/WEST/Delhi Ordersheet dated 23.09.2011 Present: Ld. counsel for DH.
No steps taken.
In the interest of justice, fresh notice be issued on filing of PF & RC to be filed within one week fro 17.12.2011.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI Ordersheet dated 17.12.2011 Present: Ld. counsel for DH Sh. Vikas Ananad.
JD remains unserved with the report being that 'No such person'.
Put up for fresh notice on PF and RC and on fresh address. Steps be taken within 6 weeks.
Matter will come up for further proceedings on 30.03.2012.
Sd/ Page No. 89/23 SUJATA KOHLI Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge (WEST) DELHI/17.12.2011 Ordersheet dated 24.01.2012 Present: Ld. counsel for DH Sh. Manish Tripathy.
File taken up on an application for furnishing new address of the JD no.1. List of property also stated to have been furnished.
Put up for further report of the Nazir on 27.01.2012 At 2:00 PM.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI Ordersheet dated 27.01.2012 Present: Ld. counsel for DH Sh. Vikas Anand.
Fresh address of JD no.1 has been furnished. Taken on record. Fresh address of JD no.2 is not furnished and no sufficient cause has been given. Notice be issued to JD1. Steps be taken taken three days.
As regards JD no.2, four weeks time is extended to furnish the fresh address. In default, the execution petition in respect of JD no.2 shall stands dismissed.
Put up the matter on 30.03.2012.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI Ordersheet dated 30.03.2012 Present: None.
Notice issued to JDs are returned with reports 'not found' and the other report being "premises found locked". As such, put up only for further proceeding on 02.06.2012.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI Ordersheet dated 13.09.2012 Present: Sh. Manish Tripathi, proxy counsel for ld. counsel for DH.
Main counsel is not available today stated to be not well. Process server Manoj Kumar has been duly served, however, none has appeared till now.
Page No. 90/23In the interest of justice, matter be kept awaited till 12:30 PM.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI At 1:20 PM Ordersheet dated 13.09.2012 Present: Sh. Manish Tripathi, Proxy counsel for Ld. counsel for DH (as before) Process server Manoj Kumar has still not appeared in spite of second call.
Matter be awaited once again and reaclled at 2:30 PM.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI Ordersheet dated 13.09.2012 Present: None for the parties.
Proxy counsel had appeared in the morning. Matter was kept only for appearance of the PS Sh. Manoj Kumar who inspite of being duly served, has failed to appear since morning in spite of repeated calls.
Let show cause notice be issued to the Incharge, Nazarat Branch, THC and to explain as to why the court orders have not been followed by the said process server and why he has failed to respond. Let, Incharge of Nazarat Branch appear alongwith the process server.
Notice shall also be issued to the AR for DH to appear in person as a last opportunity. Notices be issued today itself.
List for further proceedings on 08.10.2012.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/13.09.2012 Ordersheet dated 14.12.2012 Present: Sh. Vikas Anand, Ld. Counsel for DH.
Process Server Manoj Kumar is also present. He has not filed any reply in writing, but relying on his leave applications, photocopies and medical certificates.
His statement is being recorded regarding his report on the notice.
AR of the DH is not present in spite of repeated directions and opportunities for the reasons best known to him.
Let AR of the DH must be present in person on the NDOH.
Page No. 91/23Put up only for further directions on 11.01.2013 at 4.00 PM in view of the statement of the Process Server.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:14.12.2012
Ordersheet dated 11.01.2013 Present: Ld. counsel for DH alongwith AR.
Ld. counsel for DH has submitted that the JD has even settled the matter during mediation pursuant to proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Although he paid some amount initially but he failed to pay up the remaining amount thereafter.
In the circumstances, let affidavit of the AR stating as to how much amount is due as on date and after the payment made by the JD be filed alongwith an attested copy of statement so that warrant of attachment may be issued thereafter.
Put up on 08.02.2013.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/11.01.2013 Ordersheet dated 08.02.2013 Present: Sh. Vikas Anand, Ld. Counsel for DH.
As requested, some more time is being extended for compliance in terms of last order.
List again on 06.03.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:08.02.2013
AT 2.30 PM
Ordersheet dated 06.03.2013 Page No. 92/23 Present: None for DH.
In spite of repeated calls, none has appeared for the DH since morning. Lastly it had been submitted that some part of the amount had already been paid by the JD pursuant to a settlement while some part payment was still remaining.
However, it is not clarified till date that as to what amount has been paid in part or as to what amount is remaining.
In the interest of justice, let Court Notice be issued to DH Company with direction to its AR to appear in person to make a statement on 20.05.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:06.03.2013
Ordersheet dated 20.05.2013 Present: Sh. Vikas Anand, Counsel for DH.
He has made a submission today at the outset that this execution petition may be closed as same has been settled.
However, when asked about the terms of the settlement and amount settled etc., Ld. Counsel for DH is not having any instructions regarding the same. Ld. Counsel has further submitted that he is no more on the penal of the HDFC Bank Limited, and left this matter.
When present counsel Mr. Vivek Anand has already left this matter, he should have not to make such like submissions as made by him.
However, be that as it may, in view of the statement of the Ld. Counsel for DH Mr. Vivek Anand, he is being discharged from this matter.
However, let Court Notice be issued to HDFC Bank with direction for personal appearance of the duly authorized AR to make the statement about the decretal amount whether it has been settled or not.
List on 20.07.2013.
A copy of this Order be sent alongwith the Court Notice.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
Page No. 93/23
SK DELHI:20.05.2013
Ordersheet dated 20.07.2013 Present: Ms. Archana Ojha, New Counsel for DH Bank.
She submits that under the instructions from the DH Bank, she wants to withdraw the present execution petition.
Her separate statement is also being recorded to this effect. Put up for Orders on 30.07.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:20.07.2013
__________________________________________________________________________ Taru Agencies & Investments Pvt. Ltd., (Section 9 Arbitration & Conciliation Act) Vs. Mukesh, CS No. 67/12 Ordersheets dated 05.03.2012 (A to A), 25.05.2012, 31.08.2012, 13.05.2013, 06.08.2013.
"05.03.2012 The Receiver shall submit his report, photographs and inventory list duly prepared, visavis the vehicle within three days from the date of possession of the said vehicle.
The vehicle shall thereafter be dealt with, in accordance with further orders of this Court in the present petition.
It is also made clear to the petitioner that this is an interim measure and the order of appointment of receiver shall remain in force only till the next date of hearing.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ:WEST:DELHI Page No. 94/23 05.03.2012"
"25.05.2012 Present : Proxy counsel Ms. Anjana Masih for counsel for petitioner.
Respondent remaining unserved as per Registered A.D. with report that Address being incomplete.
Let summons be issued, on filing of complete address alongwith PF & RC within 7 days, returnable for 31.08.2012.
sd/ (Sujata Kohli) ADJ (West)/Delhi/25.05.2012"
"31.08.2012 Present: Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Ld. Counsel for Petitioner.
No steps taken.
In the interest of justice, one more opportunity is being extended to take the steps on filing of PF/RC, returnable on 03.11.2012.
Steps be taken within seven days from today.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:31.08.2012"
"13.05.2013
Present: Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Counsel for
petitioner/applicant.
No steps have been taken in terms of previous Order. Today, Ld. Counsel is simply stating that he wants to be discharged to represent the petitioner in this case as he is not appearing in the matter. He further submits that Court Notice may be issued to the petitioner to appear in the Court.
However, as per the rules framed by Hon'ble High Court w.r.t. the filing of vakalatnamas, Ld. Counsel should have issued a notice of discharge to the petitioner.
As such, matter is being adjourned to take the steps Page No. 95/23 by Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
List again for further proceedings on 06.08.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:13.05.2013"
"06.08.2013
Present: None.
Put up for Orders on 26.08.2013.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ:WEST: THC DELHI:26.08.2013"
__________________________________________________________________________ Vs. Satdev Mani Tiwari, CS No. 70/12 Order sheets dated 02.03.2012, 03.03.2012, 05.03.2012, 25.05.2012, 31.08.2012, 13.05.2013, 26.08.2013.
"02.03.2012 Present: Ld. Counsel for petitioner Sh. Sushil Kumar alongwith Sh. Sanjeev Kumar.
Fresh petition received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
Heard on the interim application. The original PODs are being filed now alongwith the list of documents. The original loan agreement has been produced, seen and returned. However, there is no document relating to the identity of the receiver Sh. Harish Chand regarding his being an employee of the petitioner company. Ld. Counsel seeks time to file the same.
As requested adjourned for tomorrow. Lit again for further consideration tomorrow itself at 2.00 PM.Page No. 96/23
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ:WEST: THC DELHI:02.03.2012"
"03.03.2012 Present: Ld. Counsel for petitioner Sh. Sushil Kumar.
Ld. Counsel for petitioner is filing attested copy of statement of account as well as AD Cards with respect to the legal notice issued.
Heard.
Put up now for orders on 05.03.2012.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ:WEST: THC DELHI:03.03.2012"
"05.03.2012 Present: None.
Upon perusal of material on record, no case is made out for grant of exparte orders for appointment of receiver as sought, as same would not be in the interest of justice.
Let summons be issued on filing of PF/RC within 7 days, returnable for 25.05.2012.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ:WEST: THC DELHI:05.03.2012"
"25.05.2012 Present : Proxy counsel Ms. Anjana Masih for counsel for petitioner.
Respondent remaining unserved as per Registered A.D. and Process Server with report - "No such person".
Let fresh summons be issued, on filing of complete address alongwith PF & RC within 7 days, returnable for 31.08.2012. sd/ (Sujata Kohli) ADJ (West)/Delhi/25.05.2012"
Page No. 97/23"31.08.2012 Present: Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Ld. Counsel for Petitioner.
No steps taken.
In the interest of justice, one more opportunity is being extended to take the steps on filing of PF/RC, returnable on 03.11.2012.
Steps be taken within seven days from today.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:31.08.2012"
"13.05.2013
Present: Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Counsel for
petitioner/applicant.
No steps have been taken in terms of previous Order.
Today, Ld. Counsel is simply stating that he wants to be discharged to represent the petitioner in this case as he is not appearing in the matter. He further submits that Court Notice may be issued to the petitioner to appear in the Court.
However, as per the rules framed by Hon'ble High Court w.r.t. the filing of vakalatnamas, Ld. Counsel should have issued a notice of discharge to the petitioner.
As such, matter is being adjourned to take the steps by Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
List again for further proceedings on 06.08.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:13.05.2013"
"26.08.2013
Present: None.
No time left.
Page No. 98/23
Put up for further consideration and Orders on 31.08.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
DV DELHI:26.08.2013"
________________________________________________________________________ Vs. Mahesh Kumar, CS No. 245/11 Order sheets dated 24.08.2011 (A to A), 28.11.2011, 13.02.2012, 14.02.2012, 29.02.2012 (Second), 17.07.2012, 04.12.2012, 30.05.2013, 18.07.2013.
"24.08.2011 (A to A) The Receiver shall submit his report, photographs and inventory list duly prepared, visavis the vehicle within three days from the date of possession of the said vehicle.
The vehicle shall thereafter be dealt with, in accordance with further orders of this Court in the present petition.
It is also made clear to the petitioner that this is an interim measure and the order of appointment of receiver shall remain in force only till the next date of hearing.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ:WEST:DELHI 24.08.2012"
"28.11.2011 Present: Associate counsel Sh. Vineet Agrawal for petitioner.
Respondent remain absent. As per the report of the process server on the given address being that the said address could not be found by the process server without the street number. At the same time, the AD Card is returned bearing the signature shown to be of one Mahesh. However, the address on this AD Card is stated to be B 122, while the address on record is shown as D122. Let respondent be served both ways itself on address given Page No. 99/23 after furnishing also the street number on PF&RC. Steps be taken within one week.
Put up on 14.02.2012.
sd/ (Sujata Kohli) ADJ (West)Delhi/28.11.2012"
"13.02.2012 Present: Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
Respondent is reported to have been served through one person named Raju, while the respondent is named Mahesh Kumar. However, Ld. Counsel is submitting that the matter is likely to be settled amicably with respondent.
Let the matter be kept awaited for respondent till 12.30 PM.
sd/ (Sujata Kohli) ADJ (West)Delhi/13.02.2012"
"14.02.2012 Present : Ld. counsel for petitioner.
Respondent is reported to have been served through one person named Raju, while the respondent is named Mahesh Kumar. However Ld. counsel is submitting that the matter is likely to be settled amicably with respondent.
Let the matter be kept awaited for respondent till 12.30 p.m. sd/ (Sujata Kohli) ADJ (West)/Delhi/14.02.2012"
"29.02.2012 (Second) Present: Ld. Counsel for petitioner Sh. Sanjeev Kumar.
He is now stating that some more time is required for settlement as respondent has taken time for payment till 20.03.2012. As such, put up now on 31.03.20120 sd/ Page No. 100/23 (Sujata Kohli) ADJ (West)/Delhi/29.02.2012"
"17.07.2012 Present: None.
Put up for settlement/further proceedings on 24.09.2012.
sd/ (Sujata Kohli) ADJ (West)/Delhi/17.07.2012"
"04.12.2012 Present: Ld. counsel for petitioner Sh.
Sushil Kumar.
Ld. counsel for petitioner is again seeking time for further settlement making a submission at bar that respondent has already paid 50% of the amount due.
In view of this submission, matter is being again adjourned only for further proceedings on 28.02.2013.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/04.12.2012"
"30.05.2013 Present: Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Counsel for petitioner.
He is making a submission that matter has already been settled between the parties. However, he is not aware about the particulars of the settlement. He is not even having any information that as to what amount has been settled.
Let duly appointed AR of the plaintiff is directed to appear alongwith his affidavit stating complete particulars of the settlement alongwith as to what amount has been settled between the parties and what is the status of the vehicle as on date.
List on 18.07.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
Page No. 101/23
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:30.05.2013"
"AT 10.45 AM
18.07.2013
Present: None.
None has appeared even on this second call. Put this matter for Orders alongwith the other similar matters on 30.07.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:18.07.2013"
__________________________________________________________________________ L & T Finance (U/S 9 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996).Vs. Man Singh, CS No. 813/10
Ordersheets dated 20.12.2010 (A to A), passed by Ld. Predecessor, 04.05.2011, 14.07.2011, 28.09.2011, 16.03.2012, 23.05.2012, 29.08.2012, 08.11.2012, 04.02.2013, 16.07.2013.
"20.12.2010 A to A The Receiver shall submit his report, photographs, inventory list duly prepared and keys, visavis the vehicle within three days from the date of possession of the said vehicle in the court.
The vehicle shall thereafter be dealt with, in accordance with further orders of this court in the present suit.
Sd/ (Hemani Malhotra) ADJ:Delhi: THC DELHI:20.12.2010"Page No. 102/23
"04.05.2011 Present: Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
Issue fresh notice of the petition to the respective on PF/RC, for 14.07.2011.
Sd/ (Hemani Malhotra) ADJ:Delhi: THC DELHI:04.05.2011"
"14.07.2011 Present: None.
Respondent is reported to have left the given address.
Issue fresh notice of the petition to the respondent on fresh PF on fresh address, if any. Steps be taken within two weeks.
List the matter on 28.09.2011.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ:WEST: THC DELHI:14.07.2011"
"28.09.2011 Present: Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
Respondent remains unserved. It is noted that the receiver has not filed any report till date in terms of ad interim ex parte relief. In these circumstances there is no reason to continue this order and the same being vacated.
Be served on PF/RC on fresh address if any, on 22.12.2011.
Steps be taken within one week. At this stage, ld. Consel for petitioner much aggrieved about the vacating of the ad interim ex parte relief. It is noted that the order of ad interim ex parte relief under Section 9 of Arbitration Act is a matter of absolute discretion of the court. In view of very certain urgent ground made out by the petitioner only an order of the kind passed as long as back as in December' 2010 and the same order was not even utilized by the petitioner. It is clear that the grounds did not exist and such like order was clearly Page No. 103/23 obtained on feigned urgency. Grievance of ld. Counsel is unjustified. He is at liberty to avail remedies under the law.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ: THC DELHI:28.09.2011"
"16.03.2012 Present : None.
Process to respondent issued has returned with a report "address could not be located as it was incomplete".
Registered A.D. process has not returned. Record shows it was issued very late i.e. on 11.01.2012. Process should not be issued as formality.
Let fresh process be issued on filing of PF & RC with 7 working days, bearing the complete postage stamp and Ahlmad is directed to issue the process immediately upon filing.
List on 23.05.2012.
sd/ (Sujata Kohli) ADJ (West)/Delhi/16.03.2012"
"23.05.2012 Present : Ld. counsel for petitioner.
Process is again returned unserved with the same report that address is incomplete. Ld. counsel is filing an application to furnish the complete address, this address being almost same except adding certain landmarks. Taken on record.
Let the respondent be served on fresh PF & RC to be filed within 7 days.
List on 29.08.2012.
sd/ (Sujata Kohli) ADJ (West)/Delhi/23.05.2012"
"29.08.2012 Present: None.
Notice issued to respondent is remaining unserved with report as per RC being left.Page No. 104/23
It is noted that process through Ld. District Judge concerned has not even returned back.
Put up for fresh service of respondent on filing of fresh address, if available on filing of PF/RC through Ld. District Judge concerned, returnable on 08.11.2012.
Steps be taken within seven days from today.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:29.08.2012"
"08.11.2012
Present: None.
Respondent is remaining unserved as per reports both ways.
Put up for fresh service of respondent on filing PF/RC within 7 days, returnable for 04.02.2013.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/08.11.2012"
"04.02.2013 Present: None.
Respondent remains unserved as per report. Put up for fresh service of the respondent on filing PF/RC within 7 days at the fresh address if any, returnable for 08.04.2013.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/04.02.2013"
"16.07.2013 Present: None.
No steps taken.
Now this matter shall be taken up for further orders on 30.07.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
DV DELHI:16.07.2013"
Page No. 105/23
__________________________________________________________________________ Vs. Rajesh Kumar, CS No. 313/11 Ordersheets dated 28.09.2011, 13.10.2011, 03.11.2011, 21.11.2011, 06.02.2012 (2), 27.03.2012, 05.06.2012, 22.08.2012 (2), 26.09.2012, 13.05.2013, 27.08.2013 (Second).
"28.09.2011 Present: Sh. Ravinder Singh Garia, advocate for the petitioner.
Fresh petition u/s 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has been received on assignment. The same be checked and registered.
There is also an application for interim relief. Heard.
Request for adjournment for filing the original authority letter and the certified copy of the statement of account u/s 5 of Banker's Book of Evidence.
Now to come up on 13.10.2011 for further orders.
Sd/ (N.K. Goel) ADJ/West05, THC 28.09.2011"
"13.10.2011 Present : Sh. Ravinder Singh Garia, advocate alongwith Sh. Karan, advocate, Sh. Vikram Singh and Sh. Rajiv Ranjan, advocate for the petitioner.
Request for adjournment for citing the provisions of the Acts to satisfy the court that Section 5 of the Banker's Book of Evidence does not apply to the petitioner which is infact a financial institution company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956.
Now to come up on 17.10.2011 (2.00 pm) for further orders.
Sd/ (N.K. Goel) ADJ/West05, THC Page No. 106/23 13.10.2011"
"13.10.2011 Present: Sh. Karan Singh, advocate for the petitioner.
It is submitted that as vide order dated 17.10.2011 this court has transferred four other mattes of the petitioner company, the present petition be also transferred.
In those four petitions the counsel for the petitioner has made certain remarks against the court and for this reason those petitions were transferred. In view of the request made by the counsel for the petitioner today, I also deem it expedient and appropriate, if the present matter is also tried and decided by another court. Therefore, the file be sent to the Ld. District Judge & Addl. Sessions Judge, Officer Incharge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi with a request to transfer the matter to some other court.
To appear before him on 01.11.2011 at 2 o' clock.
Sd/ (N.K. Goel) ADJ/West05, THC 13.10.2011"
"03.11.2011 Present: Proxy counsel Sh. Rajiv Ranjan for petitioner.
The petition under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act received by way of transfer. It be checked and registered.
Put up for consideration on 21.11.2011.
sd Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge (West) DELHI/03.11.2011"
"21.11.2011 Present: Proxy Counsel Ms. Nirmal Gupta, for plaintiff.
It is simply that main counsel Sh. Ravinder S. Garia is busy in Hon'ble High Court and more time is being sought to produce the documents called for on the last date.
In the interest of justice, one last opportunity is extended and to come up again on 06.02.2012.
sd Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge Page No. 107/23 (West) DELHI/21.11.2011"
"06.02.2012 Present: None.
Time had been sought to file certified copy of the statement of account. Same has not been filed till date. In the interest of justice, put up only for compliance and further proceedings as a last opportunity on 16.04.2012.
sd Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge (West) DELHI/06.02.2012 At this stage, Present: Proxy counsel Sh. Rajiv Ranjan for counsel for petitioner.
Proxy counsel has appeared to seek only a change of date. However, he is also inquired about the original documents required to be produced. Only time is being sought, there is no sufficient cause for delay is given.
In the interest of justice, last opportunity is extended for compliance and upon his request, the date is changed to 23.03.2012.
sd Addl. Distt. & Sessions Judge (West) DELHI/06.02.2012"
"27.03.2012 Present: None.
Matter taken up for further consideration. The registration no. of the vehicle sought to be seized and for which receiver is sought to be appointed is not mentioned in the petition.
After much inquiry, an affidavit of the Regional Manager has been filed stating in para 3 that the vehicle bearing chassis no. 426031ERZ7 25149 and Engine No. 80E626 81619 bears Registration No.HR553314 and further that in para 4, the statement is made on the basis of information derived from the record of the company and believed to be true and correct. However, the record of the company from where the vehicle no. is stated to have been deduced/derived has not been produced.Page No. 108/23
Even otherwise, it is observed that on the own case of the petitioner, a notice had been issued on behalf of the petitioner to the respondent and also to the guarantor way back in August 2011 and original acknowledgment receipt or even postal receipt showing even the dispatch of the notice have not been placed on record.
Even otherwise, assuming the notice had been duly dispatched and served upon the respondent, right from August 2011 up till date, and the entire proceedings during which more and more time was being sought by the petitioner to produce the documents, it can hardly be held that there is any real apprehension that respondent would dispose off the vehicle and it can hardly be said that there is any real necessity calling for an exparte interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which is in the nature of a discretionary relief; there are no such facts and circumstances made out to call for an ex parte order to appoint a receiver as an interim measure in the present case at this stage.
Keeping in view the entire record, it shall be more appropriate to issue a notice of the petition on filing PF/RC, returnable for 05.06.2012. Steps be taken within 7 days.
Sd/ (Sujata Kohli) DJ (West)/Delhi/27.03.2012"
"05.06.2012 Present: Sh. Anil Gupta, Legal Officer on behalf of the Petitioner.
No steps has been taken for service. However, the Legal Officer submitting that the company has been able to traceout the correct and complete address of the respondent and he undertakes to take the steps and seeks one last opportunity.
Heard. In the interest of justice, one last opportunity is extended. Let the steps be taken within seven days on filing PF&RC.
List on 22.08.2012.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ:WEST: THC Page No. 109/23 DELHI:05.06.2012"
"22.08.2012 Present: Sh. Vishal Sinha, Proxy Counsel for Counsel for Petitioner.
Respondent is present in Person. Main counsel for the petitioner and petitioner are not available today.
Respondent has stated that he had already all 45 installments, however, he has not paid the over dues on all the installments.
Today he has brought a written reply alongwith the proof of the installments paid but he is not having the copy for the opposite party.
Let the copy be brought and be supplied to the opposite proxy counsel.
Matter be recalled at the end of the miscellaneous cause list.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:22.08.2012"
"AT 12.00 Noon
22.08.2012
Present: Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner.
Respondent in Person (As Before). Now respondent is filing his reply and documents and one set has been given to the opposite counsel.
Put up for rejoinder, if any, and arguments on the application U/S 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on 26.09.2012.
AR of the petitioner must be present on the NDOH. Original receipt seen and returned.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:22.08.2012"
"Second Call at 2:35 PM
C.S. No.313/11
Page No. 110/23
26.09.2012
Present: Ld. counsel for petitioner as
before.
Respondent in person.
Respondent has already filed his reply alongwith some documents on last date. Today, there is no response from the petitioner company to the said reply and even the original receipt produced by the respondent has been seen and returned. AR of the petitioner is also not available.
Put up for personal appearance of the AR alongwith relevant record of payment in original on 06.11.2012 as a final opportunity.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/26.09.2012"
"Second Call C.S. No.313/11 13.05.2013 Present: None.
None on the second call.
Put up only for further proceedings on 27.08.2013.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/13.05.2013"
"At 2:30 PM C.S. No.313/11 27.08.2013 Present: None.
None has appeared for petitioner since morning in spite of repeated calls.
Let this matter be taken up for final orders on 31.08.2013.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE WEST/DELHI/27.08.2013"
__________________________________________________________________________ Page No. 111/23 SPERRY PLAST LTD.
Vs. M/s Bonaventure Shoes Pvt. Ltd., Ex. No. 99/10 and M. No. 03/11 therein.
Ordersheet dated 27.10.2010 (A to A) passed by Ld. Predecessor.
"27.10.2010 (A to A) On perusal of the execution application and submissions made by the Learned counsel for Decree Holder, the Judgment Debtor actually and voluntarily reside and carry on business and personally work for gain within the local limits of the District Cehnnai.
Sd/ (HEMANI MALHOTRA) ADJ04 (WEST)/DELHI 27.10.2010"
_________________________________________________________________ Ordersheet in M. No. 03/11, dated 09.04.2012, 17.07.2012, 23.04.2013, 23.07.2013, 29.07.2013, 07.10.2013 (2).
"09.04.2012 Present: None.
Transfer Certificate be issued. Put up for execution report as per Section U/S 41 CPC on 17.07.2012.
Sd (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/THC 09.04.2012"
"17.07.2012 Present: None.
The Execution report under Section 41 CPC not received from the concerned Ld. District Judge.
Be awaited and put up on 24.09.2012.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/17.07.2012"Page No. 112/23
"23.04.2013 Present: Proxy counsel Ms. Jhansi Yadav for counsel for DH alongwith employee of the DH.
Neither the proxy counsel is having any knowledge about the fate of the execution of the decree which had been transferred to the other state for execution.
It is not understandable as the execution filed is still pending before this court and none is there for the DH to give status of the execution, let Notice be issued to the Managing Director concerned directing him to appear in person to state about status of the execution or to depute any authorized officer, having full knowledge about the status of the case.
Reminder request letter be also issued to Ld. District Judge concerned.
List on 23.07.2013.
sd (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/23.04.2013"
"23.07.2013 Present: None.
Report has been received from Ld. Principal District Judge, Vellore.
Put up only for consideration and further directions on 29.07.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:23.07.2013"
"29.07.2013
Present: None.
Matter taken up for further directions. As per report received under Section 41 CPC, it transpires that the DH did not file any execution petition during the entire period of one year since the date of transfer of the decree until 16.04.2013. Though this would call for a straightaway dismissal of this application.Page No. 113/23
However, in the interest of justice, put up only for further proceedings and for appearance of the DH if any as a last opportunity on 07.10.2013.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
DV DELHI:29.07.2013"
"07.10.2013
Present: Proxy counsel for DH Sh. B.N. Gaur.
Today, neither the main counsel nor the duly appointed AR of DH is present. It is being simply stated that the AR was present earlier. It is now 12:20 PM.
Matter shall be kept awaited for the personal presence of the duly appointed AR of DH till 2:00 PM. In default, matter shall be reserved for orders straightway.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE WEST/DELHI/07.10.2013"
"At 2:45 PM M No.03/11 07.10.2013 Present: One Mr. Sanket Srivastava stating himself to be representing DH is present. Neither the said person Mr. Sanket is having any attorney nor any Board of Resolution in his favour. He is also not carrying any office ID. As such, his presence cannot be taken on record at all.
Put up this matter for orders on 19.10.2013.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE WEST/DELHI/07.10.2013"
INDUSIND BANK LTD. (U/S 9 OF ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT, 1996) Vs. Luxmi Senior Secondary School, CS No. 10/13.
Page No. 114/23Ordersheets dated 06.02.2013, 08.02.2013 (Second), 28.02.2013, 20.05.2013, 06.08.2013 (Second).
"06.02.2013 Present: None.
Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be
checked and registered.
Put up for consideration on 08.02.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:06.02.2013"
"AT 2.30 PM
08.02.2013
Present: None.
None has appeared on behalf of the petitioner in spite of repeated calls since morning. In fact, none had also appeared in this new case on the last date as well.
As such, the case is now being dismissed in default as well as for nonprosecution. File be consigned to Record Room.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:08.02.2013"
"28.02.2013
Present: Ld. Counsel for Petitioner.
The petition has again been revived upon allowing the restoration application.
Preliminary hearing is being given on the main petition.
However, original documents i.e. the Arbitration Agreement, certified copy of the Statement of Account and copy of the RC of the vehicle in question are not available.
Ld. Counsel for petitioner seeks sometime to Page No. 115/23 produce the same. In the interest of justice, put up again for consideration on 12.03.2013. (This petition not to be taken up before 12.00 Noon on the NDOH, as requested).
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:28.02.2013"
"20.05.2013
Present: None.
Put up only for further proceedings on 06.08.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:20.05.2013"
"AT 2.40 PM
06.08.2013
Present: None.
None has appeared since morning, and no original documents, as required, could be produced by the petitioner. The petition has already been revived upon a restoration application.
As such, put up only for Orders on 26.08.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:06.08.2013"
__________________________________________________________________________ CHOLAMANDALAM Vs. Usha Bhalla, Ex. No. 92/10.Page No. 116/23
Ordersheets dated 12.07.2012, 25.09.2012, 21.01.2013, 12.04.2013, 12.07.2013.
"12.07.2012 Present: None.
DH must file an affidavit of the AR alongwith Power of Attorney and I Card of the AR (copies) (Originals to be produced) with respect to the parentage etc., of the JDs and also the fact as to whether the address furnished on record is a home owned by the JDs.
It has come to notice that the parentage of each JD has not been conspicuously omitted into the execution petition and also in the memo of parties in the Award.
Put up for compliance.
Copy of order be sent to the DH office for compliance as last opportunity on 25.09.2012.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:12.07.2012"
"25.09.2012
Present: Counsel for DH.
Affidavit not being filed by AR. In the inters of justice, put up again for the same purpose on 09.10.2012.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:25.09.2013"
"21.01.2013
Present: None.
Matter taken up for further orders. In view of the report of bailiff dated 01.12.2012, the mater is being adjourned for furnishing of a new address of the JD by the DH.
Put up for further proceedings on 12.04.2013.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/21.01.2013"Page No. 117/23
"12.04.2013 Present: Sh. Pradeep Kalher, Counsel for DH.
He is seeking some more time to traceout the fresh address of the JD.
Let same be filed positively by the NDOH. Put up for further proceedings on 12.07.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:12.04.2013"
"12.07.2013
Present: Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Counsel for
DH.
He is making a submission that fresh address of the JD is not traceable.
Put this mater also alongwith the other execution petitions which are having the same status on 30.07.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:12.07.2013"
________________________________________________________________________ Ex.No.18/12 Idusind Bank VS. Sudarshan Consolidate & Anr.
07.01.2013 Present: Ld. Counsel for DH.
JD is remaining unserved as per the detailed reports both ways.
As requested, matter is being adjourned to 05.03.2013 for further proceedings.
sd/
Page No. 118/23
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:07.01.2013
05.03.2013
Present: None.
No fresh address of the JD has been furnished. In the interest of justice, put up the execution only for further proceedings to await the fresh address of the JD on 01.05.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:05.03.2013
01.05.2013
Present: Sh. Lalit Kumar, Counsel for DH.
He is once again seeking some more time to furnish the fresh address of the JD.
In the interest of justice, one more opportunity is being extended for the purpose.
List again for the same purpose on 26.07.2013. Steps be taken within 15 working days from today.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:01.05.2013
26.07.2013
Present: Ld. counsel for DH Sh. Sanjeev Kumar.
No steps have been taken in terms of the last order. Ld.
counsel for DH is simply making a submission that no fresh address of the JD is available. Though JD no.1 is a private limited company and JD no.2 is stated to be Director therein. It is not credible that the address of the Page No. 119/23 company cannot be available if efforts are made to trace out the same.
I am not convinced with the bonafide of this kind submission. However, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity is extended to the DH to make efforts and to find out the fresh address of the JD, whereafter this execution shall be coming up only for further orders.
Put up this execution petition only for further proceedings on 24.10.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
DV DELHI:26.07.2013
07.12.2013
Present: Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Counsel for DH.
He has stated that he wants to withdraw the present execution petition as fresh address of the JD is not available, and even there is no security for the loan, except the vehicle, and vehicle itself is not traceable.
His separate statement is also being recorded to this effect. Put up for Orders today itself at 4.00 PM.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
Additional District Judge
SK West: Delhi:07.12.2013
07.12.2013
Statement of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate, Chamber No. 346, Western Wing, Tis Hazari Courts Complex, Delhi. AT BAR I am counsel for DH in the above noted execution petition. Under the instruction from the DH, I want to withdraw the present execution petition as fresh address of the JD is not available, and even there is no security for the loan except the vehicle and vehicle itself is not traceable. As such, the same may kindly be dismissed as withdrawn.
My Vakalatnama is Ex. P1 which bears my signatures at point A. Sd/ RO&AC (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ:WEST: THC Page No. 120/23 DELHI:07.12.2013 E x.19/12 Indusand Bank vs. Sudarshan Consolidated & Anr.
07.01.2013
Present: Ld. Counsel for DH.
JD is remaining unserved as per the detailed reports both ways.
As requested, matter is being adjourned to 05.03.2013 for further proceedings.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:07.01.2013
05.03.2013
Present: None.
No fresh address of the JD has been furnished. In the interest of justice, put up the execution only for further proceedings to await the fresh address of the JD on 01.05.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:05.03.2013
01.05.2013
Present: Sh. Lalit Kumar, Counsel for DH.
He is once again seeking some more time to furnish the fresh address of the JD.
In the interest of justice, one more opportunity is being extended for the purpose.
List again for the same purpose on 26.07.2013. Steps be taken within 15 working days from today.
Page No. 121/23
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:01.05.2013
26.07.2013
Present: Ld. counsel for DH Sh. Sanjeev Kumar.
No steps have been taken in terms of the last order. Ld.
counsel for DH is simply making a submission that no fresh address of the JD is available. Though JD no.1 is a private limited company and JD no.2 is stated to be Director therein. It is not credible that the address of the company cannot be available if efforts are made to trace out the same.
I am not convinced with the bonafide of this kind submission. However, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity is extended to the DH to make efforts and to find out the fresh address of the JD, whereafter this execution shall be coming up only for further orders.
Put up this execution petition only for further proceedings on 24.10.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
DV DELHI:26.07.2013
07.12.2013
Present: Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Counsel for DH.
He has stated that he wants to withdraw the present execution petition as fresh address of the JD is not available, and even there is no security for the loan, except the vehicle, and vehicle itself is not traceable.
His separate statement is also being recorded to this effect. Put up for Orders today itself at 4.00 PM.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
Additional District Judge
SK West: Delhi:07.12.2013
07.12.2013
Statement of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate, Chamber No. 346, Western Wing, Tis Hazari Courts Complex, Delhi.
Page No. 122/23AT BAR I am counsel for DH in the above noted execution petition. Under the instruction from the DH, I want to withdraw the present execution petition as fresh address of the JD is not available, and even there is no security for the loan except the vehicle and vehicle itself is not traceable. As such, the same may kindly be dismissed as withdrawn.
My Vakalatnama is Ex. P1 which bears my signatures at point A. Sd/ RO&AC (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ:WEST: THC DELHI:07.12.2013 __________________________________________________________________________ HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. Vikas Singh C.S. 353/10 Order dated 05.06.2010 (relevant extracts) I accordingly, appoint Sh. Charanjit Singh, Officer of the petitioner bank as receiver with the directions to take back the custody of the Two Wheeler Model TVS Apache RTR 160CC bearing Engine No.OE4B92152620, Chasis No.MD634KE4X92B51109 RC no.DL 85ND 1675, wheresoever, it is found not withstanding whosoever may be found in possession thereof. The receiver after taking possession of the vehicle shall execute a superdginama in favour of the petitioner bank. Report of the receiver shall be filled in the court on or before the next date of hearing."
Sd/ (Virender Bhatt) ADJ/Delhi 19.07.2010 - (Steps not taken) Present: Sh. Prem Priya Vardhan, counsel for petitioner.
Respondent not served.
Be served again on filing PF/RC/Courier for the NDOH. Put up on 30.07.2010.
Sd/ (Virender Bhatt) ADJ/Delhi 30.07.2010 (Steps not taken) Present: Ms. Ongmit Lepcha, counsel for plaintiff.
Steps not taken for service of defendant. Be taken now within 2 days from today.
Page No. 123/23Put up on 13.08.2010.
Sd/
(Virender Bhat)
ADJ/Delhi
26.08.2010
Present: None.
Steps not taken for service of the defendant. Be taken within two days from today for the NDOH.
Put up on 07.09.2010.
Sd/ (Virender Bhat) ADJ/Delhi 18.09.2010 ( No steps taken) Case received by transfer from the court of Sh. Virender Bhat, Learned ADJ, Delhi. It be checked and registered. Present: Ld. counsel for petitioner.
Issue notice of the suit to the respondent on 11.11.2010.
Sd/ (Hemani Malhotra) ADJ4(west)/Delhi 19.01.2011 Present: Ms. Ongmit Lepcha, ld. counsel for petitioner.
Steps not taken for service of respondent no.1. Issue notice to respondent on filing of PF/RC for 11.02.2011.
Steps be taken within 3 days from today. Last and final opportunity is granted.
Sd/ (Hemani Malhotra) ADJ4(west)/Delhi 11.02.2011 Present: Ld. counsel for petitioner.
Issue notice to the respondent on filing of PF/RC for 14.04.2011.
Last and final opportunity is given.
Sd/ Page No. 124/23 (Hemani Malhotra) ADJ4(west)/Delhi 14.05.2011 File is taken up today as 14.04.2011 was declared holiday.
Pr. None for petitioner Steps not taken as reported in terms of last order. It is last opportunity. Be awaited for petitioner.
Sd/ SUJATA KOHLI ADJ04(West)/Delhi 14.05.2011 12.30p.m.
Pr. Counsel for plaintiff Counsel for plaintiff seeks some more time stating some personal difficulty. Though I am not convinced but in the interest of justice last opportunity is extended. Steps be taken within one week in terms of last order by filing PF/RC. To come up for same purpose on 17.08.2011.
sd/ SUJATA KOHLI ADJ04(West)/Delhi 14.05.2011 07.10.2011 Present: None.
Defendant remains unserved with the report of "address given is incomplete".
Put up for fresh service on filing of PF/RC on fresh address if any, for 06.01.2012.
Steps be taken within one week.
Sd/ SUJATA KOHLI ADJ04(West)/Delhi 07.10.2011 Page No. 125/23 08.08.2012 Present: None.
No steps have been taken for the last two dates. Last report was received with the incomplete address. However, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity is being extended to take the steps.
Let court notice be served upon the plaintiff directly for 15.10.2012(NO PF).
Sd/ SUJATA KOHLI ADJ04(West)/Delhi 08.08.2012 07.01.2013 Present: None.
Court Notice had been served for the last date, however, in the interest of justice, let fresh Court Notice be issued to the petitioner to be served through his counsel, returnable for 04.03.2013.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:07.01.2013
04.03.2013
Present: None.
Court notice served.
Be recalled at the end of the list.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
At 11:35 AM
Present: None.
Recalled at 2:15 PM.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
AT 2.40 PM
04.03.2013
Page No. 126/23
Present: One Sh. Meer Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate is appearing for
the first time only to withdraw this case, however, without any instruction. However, his Vakalatnama is not on record.
Ld. Counsel is relying on an Authority Letter stated to be issued by the main counsel.
However, either main counsel or duly constituted AR of the plaintiff company shall appear in person to make any statement.
As such, put up for appearance of the main counsel or duly constituted AR of the plaintiff company on 08.04.2013.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:04.03.2013
12.07.2013
Present: None on the second call as well.
Put up again on 04.09.2013.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
04.09.2013
Present: None.
Matter is listed today for appearance of the main counsel or duly constituted AR of the plaintiff, however, none has appeared today due to lawyer' strike.
There is no ground for adjournment, however, only in the interest of justice, put up again for the same purpose now on 27.11.2013.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
Additional District Judge
SK West: Delhi:04.09.2013
27.11.2013
Present: None.
Put up only for further Orders on 03.12.2013.
Page No. 127/23
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
Additional District Judge
SK West: Delhi:27.11.2013
__________________________________________________________________________ Ex. No. 02/13 (HDFC BANK Vs. VIRENDER KUMAR SHARMA) "12.02.2013 Present: None.
Matter taken up for further directions. Since the decree pertains to the year 2011, let Notice of the execution petition be issued to the JD on filing of PF/RC to be filed within seven days from today, returnable for 23.04.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:12.02.2013"
"23.04.2013
Present: Counsel for DH.
Notice has been duly served upon the JD. As per the AD Card received back bearing the signatures of one Deepak, and also through Process Server who has served the notice upon the sisterinlaw of the JD.
As such, JD is very well in the knowledge of the pendency of this execution petition, but he has not appeared.
As such, et warrants of attachment be issued against JD on filing of PF only with respect to movable properties in the first instance as per list attached. DH is directed to accompany the Bailiff to the spot.
DH is directed to appear before Ld. ACJ on Page No. 128/23 13.05.2013 at 2.00 PM.
Put up before this Court for report on 30.05.2013.
PF be filed within three working days from today.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ:WEST: THC DELHI:23.04.2013"
SK "30.05.2013 Present: Sh. Harsh Sinha, Counsel for DH alongwith AR Sh. Ankur Saini.
As per the report of Bailiff that JD JD had paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ i.e. part payment of the decretal amount to the DH at the spot itself by way of a cross cheque, however, the said cross cheque has been dishonoured as per the returned memo of the bank. Copy of the returned memo has also placed on record by Ld. Counsel for DH.
At this stage, Ld. Counsel for DH is praying for issuance of warrants of attachment with respect to the vehicle in question i.e. TATA SAFARI DICOR LX, bearing Registration No. HR 29 R - 8415, Engine No. DICOR06ESZ854240 and Chassis No. 403063ESZN08686.
Let affidavit of AR of the DH be filed in respect of the said vehicle's particulars being owned in the name of the JD as on date, and thereafter, PF be filed.
In the meantime, AR is seeking sometime to file the affidavit after verification from the records.
List on 15.07.2013.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:30.05.2013"
"15.07.2013
Page No. 129/23
Present: Ld. Counsel for DH.
Today, ld. Counsel for DH has filed an affidavit of one Sh. Ankush Saini stated to be the AR of DH. The AR is not present.
Let the AR must be filed his authorization letter in the form of power of attorney and board resolution on 06.09.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
DV DELHI:15.07.2013"
"AT 2.45 PM
06.09.2013
Present: Sh. S.P. Rana, Counsel for DH.
AR who had appeared in morning on the first call, has not appeared after seeking the passover. He had stated on the first call that he has brought the certified copy of the resolution, and matter was kept awaited to await the original resolution, however, only photocopy of a certified copy of the resolution is being filed.
In view of the agitation of AR to produce the original resolution and even certified copy thereof.
However, in the interest of justice, one last and final opportunity is being extended for production of original resolution on 06.11.2013.
In case, status is the same on the NDOH also, execution petition would be dismissed for non prosecution straightaway without any further Orders.
AR must be present in person on the NDOH.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
Additional District Judge
SK West: Delhi:06.09.2013"
"16.01.2014
Present: AR Sh. Ankur Saini on behalf of DH bank.
Page No. 130/23
AR does not want to produce the original board of resolution. There is no reason for this kind of conduct of Mr. Ankur Saini claiming himself to be the AR of DH bank. He even claims that the cheques which were paid during execution had been dishonored. The original cheque has also not been produced before the court.
Now this execution shall come up for further orders on 20.01.2014.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE WEST/DELHI/16.01.2014"
________________________________________________________________________ Ex. No. 131/10 (KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK Vs. ARVIND BATRA) "18.05.2011 Present: None for DH.
Ms. Anita Batra, is present on behalf of the JD who is stated to be wife of JD.
Ms. Anita Batra states she has paid most of the decretal amount rupees six lacs approximately, however, she has not filed any statement. Let her file statement in the form of affidavit alongwith receipts, alongwith extra copy for DH for verification. In the meantime, she is filing another photocopy of the receipt, original of which has been seen and returned. Let the receipt be placed on record.
Matter now be listed for further consideration on 19.08.2011.
SD/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/DELHI"
"17.09.2011 Present: None for DH.
JD in person along his wife.
Today copies of documents i.e. receipts and statements have been filed as well as original authority letter executed by the JD in favour of his wife. Advance Page No. 131/23 copies of documents and receipts supplied to the DH. DH may file reply and status on the date of hearing after verification.
Let this matter come up on 17.11.2011.
SD/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/DELHI"
"17.11.2011 Present: Counsel for DH Sh. Vasant Kumar Singh.
JD in person.
Ld. Counsel for DH states that after taking into account all the receipts furnished by the JD still a sum of Rs. 3,10,285/ remains outstanding towards principal and Rs. 1,02,394/ towards interest up till 15.8.2011. However, JD does not dispute amount also. But at this stage, Ld. Counsel for DH states that matter should be referred to Mediation and for which JD is also agreeable. AR of the DH is not present. However, it is made clear that the AR shall remain present before Ld. Mediator. Matter referred to Mediation for 21.11.2011 at 2.00 PM and before Court on 30.11.2011.
SD/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/DELHI:17.11.2011"
"04.06.2012 Present: Sh. Basant Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for DH.
Ld. Counsel submitted that a settlement has been arrived at between the parties but the entire payment has not been made as yet. However, Ld. Counsel has also suggested and requested for an adjournment for settlement of the payment.
List on 30.07.2012.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ:WEST: THC DELHI:04.06.2012"
"14.12.2012 Present: Sh. Amrender Kumar, Ld. Counsel for DH.
He is stating under instructions that though Page No. 132/23 the JD has settled the matter with the DH and had even paid some part amount, but some amount is still remaining due.
However, Ld. Counsel has not exact information regarding how much amount has been paid or what exact amount is still due.
Let statement of account of DH to show the transactions be filed by the NDOH.
Put up only for further proceedings on 07.01.2013.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:14.12.2012"
"Ex. No. 131/10
07.01.2013
Present: None for DH.
JD in person.
Statement of account was to be filed by the DH showing the transactions between the JD and DH. Earlier Ld. Counsel for DH had already stated that JD had settled the present matter with the DH.
In the meantime, JD is informing that DH has filed another matter regarding the same (criminal) cause of action at Jaipur Courts.
However, in the interest of justice, matter be kept awaited till 2.00 PM.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:07.01.2013"
"At 12:00 Pm
Ex. No.131/10
07.01.2013
Present: Ld. counsel for DH.
This mater is kept awaited for 2:00 PM and as informed to the JD who appeared on the first call. Now ld.Page No. 133/23
counsel for DH Sh. Basant Kumar Singh has appeared and requesting personally that on account of his wife admission in the hospital and he has left her over there, he wants the case to be taken up right now.
The presence of counsel for DH is being dispensed with for today and matter would be simply adjourned when it is again taken up today at 2:00 PM before the JD.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/07.01.2013"
"07.01.2013 Present: None for DH.
JD in person as before.
In view of the proceedings prelunch as recorded, matter is being simply adjourned today to 14.02.2013.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/07.01.2013"
"08.07.2013 Present: None.
Matter is reported to have been settled through mediation. However, none has appeared for DH to make any statement.
Let Court notice be issued to the DH with direction to appear and make a statement through the duly appointed authorized representative for disposal of the execution on 30.08.2013.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/08.07.2013"
"AT 12.15 PM 30.08.2013 Present: None for DH.
JD in person.
This is the second call, but none has responded for the DH.Page No. 134/23
Statement of DH was to be recorded for final disposal of the execution.
However, in the interest of justice, matter be kept awaited till 2.00 PM.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
Additional District Judge
SK West: Delhi:30.08.2013"
"AT 3.00 PM
30.08.2013
Present: Sh. Mukesh Kumar, stated to be the New AR
of the DH.
JD in person.
New AR has stated that matter had been settled between the parties for a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/, out of which, JD paid only Rs. 70,000/ , while Rs. 60,000/ is still due as he failed to pay up, and accordingly, the settlement facility was recalled, and as such, the original decretal amount is outstanding. Less the payment of Rs. 70,000/ in between. The AR has relied upon two statements of account, both of which he has been asked to certify.
JD has also been inquired, and he maintains that he had already paid Rs. 1,30,000/ to the DH as settled, however, he is not able to produce any relevant document in support of his submissions, even in spite of many opportunities.
New AR has further filed an application for his substitution in place of previous AR accompanied by his own affidavit, and copy of the resolution in his favour. The new AR also now prays that fresh warrants of attachment should be issued to recover the decretal amount. He further states that there is no Objection U/S 34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 pending as on date.
However, let an affidavit be filed in this respect on the NDOH.Page No. 135/23
Heard.
Put up for Orders on this application on 09.09.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
Additional District Judge
SK West: Delhi:30.08.2013"
"AT 12.45 PM
09.09.2013
This matter is already scheduled for 4.00 PM for Orders today itself, but the JD and and his wife Smt. Anita Batra has appeared and requested verbally for the matter to be taken up as they wanted to produce the original receipts showing the payment of Rs. 1 lac.
This material should have been produced earlier, and not on the day when the matter was received for Orders, however in the interest of justice, the original receipts are being seen, and they shall be retained on record until further Orders.
Let a Court Notice be issued to the DH alongwith copy of this Order with direction to appear in person and clarify.
One set of copies of the receipts be also supplied to the DH on their own through their counsels within three working days from today.
Put up for consideration on 03.10.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
Additional District Judge
SK West: Delhi:09.09.2013"
"03.10.2013
Present: Sh. Anand Mohan, Proxy Counsel for main
counsel for DH.
JD in person alongwith his wife. Rs. 40,000/ is remaining to be paid as jointly stated.Page No. 136/23
As requested, now list again for entire payment and settlement on 20.12.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
Additional District Judge
SK West: Delhi:03.10.2013"
"20.12.2013
Present: One person Mr. Mukesh Kumar, is present on
behalf of DH claims himself to be the AR of the DH.
He has inquired upon a certified copy of the extract of Board Resolution. The said certified copy is to be taken on record, but the said Mr. Mukesh Kumar states that he cannot file the certified copy as this is the original, and according to him, there is no original resolution in the Minute Book whatsoever.
In view of his own submission, he cannot be held to be the duly appointed AR of the DH company.
In the circumstances, let any of the Director of the DH Company be present in person alongwith original Minute Book containing the relevant extracts for the purpose of recording of the statement on the NDOH.
List on 31.01.2014.
Copy of this Order be given dasti to the present Mr. Mukesh Kumar for compliance.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
Additional District Judge
SK West: Delhi:20.12.2013"
__________________________________________________________________________ Ex. No.91/11 HDFC Bank Vs. Sandeep Kumar.
01.12.2011 Present: Ld. counsel for DH.
TC sent. Registered AD received. Be awaited for report of ld. DJ under section 41 CPC for 24.02.2012.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) Page No. 137/23 ADJ:WEST: THC 24.02.2012 At 1.20 p.m. Present : Proxy counsel for DH as before on the first call.
She has sought pass over to obtain the instruction from DH. In the interest of justice one last opportunity is being extended. In case no definite statement is being made and no instruction received, the execution would stand dismissed as not prosecuted.
List on 11.05.2012.
sd/ (Sujata Kohli) ADJ (West)/Delhi/24.02.2012 18.08.2012 Present: None.
Be awaited and recalled at 2:15 PM.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ:WEST: THC At 2:30 PM.
18.08.2012
Present: None.
Since the status of the execution has not been reported from the concerned district after transfer of the decree, let reminder request letter be issued to Ld. District Judge concerned through Ld. District Judge, Delhi.
Put up for report under Section 41 CPC on 27.10.2012.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/18.08.2012
04.12.2012
Present: None.
No report.
Issue court notice to DH for 28.02.13.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
20.05.2013
Present: None.
A report has been received from Ld. District Judge Page No. 138/23 concerned.
Put up for consideration and further directions on 07.06.2013.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:20.05.2013
07.06.2013
Present: None.
No time left as it is already 4.45 PM. Put up for further consideration and further directions on 15.07.2013.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:07.06.2013
07.03.2013 (report of Ld. Judicial Magistrate, Itawa) The contents of the report of the said Judicial Magistrate are being reproduced herein.
Decree holder never appeared before the Transferee court right from 01.12.2011 onwards till date of the report i.e. 07.03.2013. __________________________________________________________________________ Ex. No. 02/12 M/s ORIX AUTO Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR & ANR.
"27.04.2012
Present : None.
Report not received back. Let court notice be issued to the DH. Notice be served upon the DH as well as counsel for DH.
List for report/further proceeding on 13.07.2012.
sd/ (Sujata Kohli) ADJ (West)/Delhi/27.04.2012 "13.07.2012 Present: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Proxy Counsel for the DH.Page No. 139/23
He has no information regarding the status of the execution after the transfer to Faridabad Court. Let the appear alongwith the intimation or in the alternative, AR should appear on the NDOH.
Put up for Status Report on 27.09.2012.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:13.07.2012"
"27.09.2012
Present: None.
No report under Section 41 CPC has been received from the concerned District Judge regarding status of the execution nor anyone has appeared to inform the status.
In the circumstances, let a request letter be issued to Ld. District Judge, Faridabad.
Be awaited for report and put up this matter on 06.12.2012.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/27.09.2012"
"06.12.2012 Present: None.
No report U/S 41 of CPC received from the Ld. District Judge, Faridabad, Haryana. The status of the execution is not known till date.
Let Court Notice be issued to DH to inform the status of the execution, returnable for 28.02.2013.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:06.12.2012"
"18.05.2013
Present: Proxy counsel Sh. Uttam Kumar for DH.
Today, proxy counsel for DH is submitting that Page No. 140/23 the matter has already been settled between the parties. However, proxy counsel for DH is not having any instructions about the amount settled and even whether it has been paid or not.
Statement of the main counsel would be recorded only when the settlement particulars are furnished and settlement papers are produced on 31.05.2013 sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/18.05.2013"
"AT 1.25 PM 31.05.2013 Present: Sh. Vikas Copra, Counsel for DH.
Matter passedover in the morning session to be taken up after, however, Ld. Counsel for DH is requesting for adjournment stating that matter is to be withdrawn.
In the interest of justice, list again for withdrawal on 05.06.2013.
In the meantime, duly appointed AR is directed to appear in person alongwith his affidavit stating complete particulars of the settlement on the NDOH.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:31.05.2013"
"AT 2.30 PM
05.06.2013
Present: Sh. Uttam Kumar, Proxy Counsel for Counsel
for DH.
Neither the main counsel not duly appointed AR is present, and only adjournment is being sought.Page No. 141/23
In the interest of justice, one final opportunity is being extended for the same purpose.
AR is directed to appear alongwith original Power of Attorney as well as Board Resolution in his favour.
List on 08.07.2013.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:05.06.2013"
"08.07.2013
Present: AR Mr. Ratnesh Kumar for DH.
None for JD.
Today Sh. Ratnesh Kumar for DH is appearing without the counsel and he has not aware about the status of the execution which is pending ever since the year 2011. This execution is awaiting for report under Section 41 CPC from the concerned executing court at Faridabad, Haryana.
Let reminder request letter be issued to the concerned Ld. District Judge and also the main counsel for DH must appear to inform the status of the execution so that the execution can be disposed off finally.
List on 26.09.2013.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/08.07.2013"
"26.09.2013 Present: None.
Let reminder request letter be issued to Ld. District Judge concerned for report under Section 41 CPC.
Put up only for further proceedings on 19.12.2013.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/29.09.2013"
"19.12.2013 Present: Ld. Cousnel for DH Sh. Vikas Chopra.
Page No. 142/23None for JD.
In view of the statement of ld. Counsel for DH recorded today, put up this matter for Orders on 21.12.2013.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/19.12.2013"
"21.12.2013 Present: None.
Matter taken up for further Orders. Put up for personal appearance of the AR of the DH company alongwith original/certified board resolution in his favour on 28.01.2014.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/21.12.2013""Ex. No.02/12
19.12.2013 Statement of Ld. counsel for DH Sh. Vikas Chopra D 683/02, O/o X50A, Civil Wing, THC, Delhi. ON SA I am the counsel for the DH in the above noted execution petition. Vakalatnama is also bearing my signature at point X and the same is being Ex.P1.
Under instructions I state that the DH has already settled the matter with the JD and the amount settled stands already paid to the DH. I don't know the amount settled.
Under instructions of the DH company, I want to withdraw this execution petition simplicitor.
As such, same may be dismissed as withdrawn.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) RO & AC ADJ/WEST/DELHI/19.12.2013 __________________________________________________________________________ EX. No. 04/13 CITI FINANCIAL CONSUMER FINANCE INDIA LTD. VS.
Page No. 143/23GURJEET SINGH & ANR.
"01.02.2013 Present: Ld. counsel for DH.
Fresh execution received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
Execution of exparte award passed in the year 2010 has been perused.
Let notice of the execution be issued to all the JD on filing PF/RC. In the meantime, ld. counsel for DH has also stated that there is no notice of any objection petition also received as per instructions. Steps be taken within 7 days, returnable for 16.04.2013.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/01.02.2013"
"16.04.2013 Present: Counsel for DH.
JD Nos. 1 to 4 stand duly served as per report of Process Server, however, as per Registered AD Envelope addressed to JD Kamal Deep has returned unserved with the report that he has left the given address, and as regard the other JDs, AD have been returned duly signed. As per Process Server, all the JDs have been duly served.
Since none of the JD has responded despite repeated calls, as prayed by Ld. Counsel for DH, let warrants of attachment be issued on filing of PF against all the JD at their Delhi address only with respect to movable properties in the first instance as per list attached.
DH is directed to appear before Ld. ACJ on 29.04.2013 at 2.00 PM.
Put up before this Court for report on 18.05.2013.
PF be filed within seven working days from today.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:16.04.2013
Page No. 144/23
"AT 1.15 PM
16.04.2013
At this stage, when the case has already been disposed off the day, and even warrants of attachment was directed to be issued against the JDs, JD No. 1 has appeared and submits that he was very well present around and had only gone when the case was called.
As such, in the interest of justice, on his request, file taken up again as he is stating that he had cleared all the payments to the DH and no amount is due against him as on date. He has also produced statement of account stated to have been issued from the bank. Copy also placed on record.
Separate statement of the JD No. 1 is also being recorded to this effect.
In view of this, the directions for issuance of warrants of attachment are being canceled for the time being.
The date given for the appearance before Ld. ACJ is being canceled. However, execution to come up before this Court on date already fixed.
Let Court Notice be issued to Ld. Counsel for DH alongwith copy of this Order. JD is also directed to be punctual in the Court in future.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ:WEST: THC DELHI:16.04.2013 "18.05.2013 Present: Ld. counsel for DH Sh. Umesh Pandey.
JD in person alongwith counsel Sh. H.S. Dhawan.
Mr. H.S. Dhawan has filed his vakalatnama only today. Earlier on the last date, statement of the JD had been recorded. He had already filed a bunch of statement of account. Today, he has also filed one more statement of account showing the receipt of some more amounts by the Page No. 145/23 DH. However, these copies are not signed or even attested.
Copies have been given at this stage to the opposite counsel for verifying from his client that in case the stand of the defendant that he has nothing more to pay, is going to be disputed, the duly authorized representative of the DH must appear in person alongwith his own affidavit and the certified statement of account. Copies of the previous statement also given.
Matter shall be shown in the list of miscellaneous arguments now on 20.07.2013.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/18.05.2013"
"20.07.2013 Present: Sh. Umesh Pandey, Counsel for DH.
Sh. H.S. Dhawan, Counsel for JD alongwith JD. Today again, there is no AR nor any document is being produced as required, and simply it is being stated that previous AR has left the company.
Keeping in view of all the facts and circumstances of this execution petition, it is now being directed that either the Managing Director or any one of the Directors who is fully acquainted with the facts of the case must be present in person on the NDOH alongwith original Board Resolution and original Minutes Book in his favour showing him Director of the company, and also alongwith the duly certified Loan Account Statement.
List on 24.08.2013.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:20.07.2013"
"24.08.2013
Page No. 146/23
Present: Sh. Vidur Sukka, Counsel for DH.
Sh. H.S. Dhawan, Counsel for JD alongwith JD. The Managing Director/Director had been directed to appear in person in view of the previous proceedings of this matter, however, he has not bothered to appear and instead an exemption application has been field. However, no reason for exemption is being stated in this application even on the face of it.
It was particularly in view of the lack of diligence in prosecution of the execution due to which the directions for personal appearance of the Managing Director/Director had been issued, and since no reason has been stated in this application for their exemption.
However, at this stage, Ld. Counsel for DH as well as JD are jointly informing that the dispute has already been amicably settled between the parties almost on all the terms except only few modalities i.e. about the future interest.
Ld. Counsel for DH has admitted that as per the statement of accounts of DH, the total amount due, was Rs. 17,00,985/, out of which the JD had already paid Rs. 9,00,000/, and remaining Rs. 12,55,000/ is remaining to be paid towards the principal, and the total amount including the interest would be Rs. 15,41,501/.
In the meantime, the JD has raised some dispute about the interest being charged by the DH, in as much as, according to him, DH has changed the rate of interest even without informing him.
However, this aspect would be sorted out between the parties by the NDOH.
It is suggested that in view of likely settlement if once the rate of interest is fixed, same should not be changed, and same would be locked.
In view of these developments and also seeing that the matter is now being diligently pursued, in the interest of justice, personal presence of Managing Director/Director is being exempted until further Orders.
List on 26.09.2013.
Page No. 147/23
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
Additional District Judge
SK West: Delhi:24.08.2013"
"26.09.2013
Present: Sh. Umesh Pandey, Counsel for DH alongwith
Sh. Sandeep Saini, stated to be the AR of the DH.
JD in person.
Matter is likely to be settled, however, one of the contention relating to the interest i.e. intended to be charged by the DH bank, and it is also not clear that the loan given by the DH to the JD, was home loan or any other kind of loan.
Further, JD is stating that the rate of interest was around @ 10% per annum, whereas AR of the DH is stating that the rate of interest would be around 15% per annum.
Since this matter is likely to be settled, same can be sent to the National Lok Adalat to be held on 23.11.2013 for settlement, however, both the parties are stating that they are not inclined to join the National Lok Adalat, and they are inclined only to go for mediation.
As such, matter is being referred to the Mediation Center.
Parties and Ld. Counsels to appear before the Mediation Center at 2.00 PM today itself.
Put up only for report of settlement, if any, /further proceedings before this Court on 12.11.2013.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
Additional District Judge
SK West: Delhi:26.09.2013"
"08.01.2014
Present: Counsel for the DH.
Counsel for JD.
Ld. Counsels are stated hat matter has been Page No. 148/23 settled amicably between the parties. However, JD is not present to state about the settlement.
Let JD be present in person on the NDOH alongwith his original photo ID.
AR of the DH should also be present in person alongwith original Board Resolution in his favour and also alongwith his original office photo ID for the purpose of statement on the NDOH.
List on 06.02.2014.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
Additional District Judge
SK West: Delhi:08.01.2014"
"06.02.2014
Present: Ld. counsel for DH Sh. Umesh Pandey
alongwith Sh. Pradeep Bhalla (stated to be new AR of the DH) JD in person.
Matter has been taken up again for consideration and recording of an appropriate statement of the JD. From submissions of the JD, after going by the agreed installments before Ld. Mediator i.e. Rs.23,956/, he would be left to pay 60 monthly installments in the said amount.
Ld. counsel for DH disputes this and needs time to check. Mr. Pradeep Bhalla stated to be new AR of the DH is not having any instructions whatsoever stated to have joined recently.
It is taken note that all the socalled ARs in these companies are stated to be changing frequently and never any resignation letter or termination letters are being being brought forward. These so called ARs are almost blank about the facts and not having any instructions. It is not understandable as to from where ld. counsel for DH derives his instructions.
Further, the ARs are never able to produce their original Power of Attorney and never able to produce Board resolution in favour of the executant of the so called power Page No. 149/23 attorney. Even never anyone of the Directors has appeared. The litigations are going on just without any instructions and are directions less.
At this stage, Ld. counsel for DH further makes a submission that original board resolution is very difficult to be produced. This is not a sufficient cause.
It is further taken note of the fact that in none of these cases before the undersigned, the original minute book has ever been produced containing the original board resolution. These matters are getting more and more misterious.
However, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity is being afforded to the ld. counsel for DH to provide all the supporting documents in original as sought on NDOH.
List on 25.02.2014.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE WEST/DELHI/06.02.2014 "25.02.2014 Present: Sh. Vidur Sikka, Counsel for DH.
The documents as required, have not been produced till date in spite of more than sufficient opportunities.
Let this matter come up for Orders now on 03.03.2014.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
Additional District Judge
SK West: Delhi:25.02.2014"
__________________________________________________________________________ Ex. No. 105/2011 THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND Vs. AJAY KAPOOR "22.10.2011 Present: Ld. Counsel Sh. Puneet Bhalla for DH,.
Nazir report perused.
Page No. 150/23Put up only for further orders on the aspect that whether the warrant of attachment will be issued or there is any scope of issuing any notice.
Put up for orders today itself at 4:00 PM.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI/22.10.2011"
"Ex. No. 105/2011Present: None.
Execution petition kept for further directions. Record perused. Let warrants of attachment be issued against the JD w.r.t. the movable property as per list, in the first instance on filing of PF. DH to appear before Ld. ACJ for appointment of bailiff on 21.11.2011 and to come up for report before this Court on 16.12.2011.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI/22.10.2011 "Ex. No. 105/2011 16.12.2011 Present: None.
Put up only for further proceedings on 07.03.2012.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI/16.12.2011"
07.03.2012 Present: Ld. Counsel for DH Sh. Sachin Garg.
None for JD.
Since the JD has already made some part payment, also as reported. There is ample scope of settlement.
In the interest of justice, let notice be issued in the first instance on PF/RC, to be filed within 7 days, returnable for 29.05.2012.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI/07.03.2012"Page No. 151/23
"29.05.2012 Present: Ld. counsel for DH Sh. Sachin Garg.
Ld. counsel for DH submits that the JD is reported to have been served.
Let the matter be kept awaited for personal presence of JD till 12:30 PM.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI/29.05.2012"
"12:30 PM Present: As before.
None has appeared for JD.
In view of the submissions of ld. counsel for DH, put up this execution only for further proceedings on 04.09.2012.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI/29.05.2012"
"20.07.2013 Present: None.
Since the undersigned was on leave on the previous dates and none had appeared for DH, let court notice be issued to the counsel for DH, returnable for 24.09.2013.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/20.07.2013"
"24.09.2013 Present: Sh. Sachin Kumar Garg, Associate Counsel for DH.
Sh. Piyush Tripathi, stated to be the new counsel for JD.
Sh. Sachin Kumar Garg, Ld. Associate Counsel makes a submission that he wants to withdraw the Vakalatnama of the main counsel for DH i.e. Ms. Chetna Bhalla and Sh. Puneet K. Bhalla.Page No. 152/23
New counsel for DH is not having any Vakalatnama so far, and he is filing only a memo of appearance.
In the circumstances, let Vakalatnama be filed by new counsel for DH and only then, submission being made by him can be considered.
In the meantime, Ld. Associate Counsel for DH states that he has been appointed at the instance of M/s Phoenix ARC Limited who has taken over the assets and liability of The Royal Bank of Scotland.
Put up for further proceedings on 19.10.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
Additional District Judge
SK West: Delhi:24.09.2013"
25.11.2013
Present: None.
Put up for personal appearance of duly constituted attorney of bank alongwith his photo ID proof and also board resolution in his favour and also original/certified deed of assignment in favour of M/s Phoenix ARC Ltd. as a final opportunity on 19.02.2014.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE WEST/DELHI/25.11.2013"
__________________________________________________________________________ Ex. No. 109/2011 THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND Vs. SARABJEET S. JAGGI "21.10.2011 Present: Ld. Counsel for DH Sh. Puneet Bhalla.
Fresh execution petition received on assignment. It be checked and registered.
Page No. 153/23Nazir to submit his report and put up for consideration on 22.10.2011.
In the meantime, Ld. Counsel for DH also submits that the execution has been filed within two years of the passing of the award and he called for issuance of warrants of attachment straightaway.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) Additional District Judge West: Delhi:21.10.2011"
"22.10.2011 Present: None.
Execution petition kept for further directions. Record perused. Let warrants of attachment be issued against the JD w.r.t. the movable property as per list, in the first instance on filing PF. DH to appear before the Ld. ACJ for appointment of bailiff on 21.11.2011 and to come up for report before this Court on 16.12.2011.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) Additional District Judge West: Delhi:22.10.2011"
"16.12.2011 Present: None.
Put up only for further proceedings on 07.03.2012.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI/16.12.2011"
"07.03.2012 Present: Ld. Counsel for DH.
As per the report of Bailiff, the AR came to the Bailiff and informed him that premises lying locked and as such he need no to go to the spot. As such AR should present in the court on the next date.
List for the appearance of the AR on 29.05.2012.Page No. 154/23
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI/07.03.2012"
"29.05.2012 Present: Ld. counsel for DH Sh. Sachin Garg.
Ld. counsel for DH submits that the JD is reported to have been served.
Put up only for further proceedings on 04.09.2012.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI/29.05.2012 "20.07.2013 Present: None.
Since the undersigned was on leave on the previous dates and none had appeared for DH, let court notice be issued to the counsel for DH, returnable for 24.09.2013.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/20.07.2013"
"24.09.2013 Present: Sh. Sachin Kumar Garg, Associate Counsel for DH.
Sh. Piyush Tripathi, stated to be the new counsel for JD.
Sh. Sachin Kumar Garg, Ld. Associate Counsel makes a submission that he wants to withdraw the Vakalatnama of the main counsel for DH i.e. Ms. Chetna Bhalla and Sh. Puneet K. Bhalla.
New counsel for DH is not having any Vakalatnama so far, and he is filing only a memo of appearance.
In the circumstances, let Vakalatnama be filed by new counsel for DH and only then, submission being made by him can be considered.
In the meantime, Ld. Associate Counsel for DH states that he has been appointed at the instance of M/s Page No. 155/23 Phoenix ARC Limited who has taken over the assets and liability of The Royal Bank of Scotland.
Put up for further proceedings on 19.10.2013.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
Additional District Judge
SK West: Delhi:24.09.2013"
"25.11.2013
Present: None.
Put up for personal appearance of duly constituted attorney of bank alongwith his photo ID proof and also board resolution in his favour and also original/certified deed of assignment in favour of M/s Phoenix ARC Ltd. as a final opportunity on 19.02.2014.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE WEST/DELHI/25.11.2013"
"AT 2.30 PM 19.02.2014 Present: None.
None has appeared since morning in spite of repeated calls.
Put up for Orders on 03.03.2014.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
Additional District Judge
SK West: Delhi:19.02.2014"
__________________________________________________________________________ Ex. 92/2011 HDFC BANK Vs. SATYA PRAKASH & ANR.
"01.09.2011
Present: Ld. Counsel for DH.
Fresh execution petition received. It be
checked and registered.
Page No. 156/23
Heard.
Put up for orders on 05.09.2011.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) Additional District Judge West: Delhi:01.09.2011"
"16.08.2012 Present: None.
Court Notice has been duly served but none has appeared for the DH.
Let a request letter be issued to Ld. District Judge concerned to await a report under Section 41 CPC for 09.11.2012.
Request Letter be sent today itself.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:16.08.2012"
"09.11.2012
Present: None.
No report has been received under Section 41 CPC nor the DH is present. DH has not even responded to the court notice served on the last date.
In the interest of justice, be awaited for report as a last opportunity and also a reminder request letter be issued to the Ld. District Judge concerned.
List on 21.02.2013.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/09.11.2012"
"07.08.2013 Present: None.
Let reminder request letter be issued to Ld. District Judge concerned to await the report U/S 41 of CPC. Also, Court Notices be issued to the DH Bank directly as Page No. 157/23 well as their counsel to appear in person and to inform the status of the execution petition, returnable on the NDOH.
List on 29.10.2013.
sd
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:07.08.2013"
"23.01.2014
Present: New counsel Sh. Sushant Prasher for
DH.
Today, new 'counsel' Sh. Sushant Prasher is appearing for DH and filing vakalatnama. The vakalatnama is in the name of Naveen Sharma and Associates and bearing signatures of Mr. Susahtn Prasher.
It is quite conspicuous that the vakalatnama is not having any official stamp of any of the officials of DH company and it is bearing only small initial like alphabet 'A' and certainly cannot be identified as to whether who has appointed the advocate.
At this stage, new 'counsel' for the DH is seeking time to inspect the file. It is noted that the execution is just lying pending without any further concrete proceedings therein. Ever there is no duly appointed AR of the DH is present to follow up this case. Same has been the position for the last many dates.
However, since new counsel for DH has appeared today, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity is extended to pursue this execution further. Duly appointed AR of the DH must be present alongwith original Minutes Book on NDOH.
List for further proceedings on 26.02.2014.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE WEST/DELHI/23.01.2014"
__________________________________________________________________________ C.S. 356/10 HDFC Bank VS. Umed Najruddin Order dated 05.06.2010 (relevant extracts) I accordingly, appoint Sh. Charanjit Singh, Officer of the Page No. 158/23 petitioner bank as receiver with the directions to take back the custody of the Two Wheeler Model Bajaj Platina AW bearing Engine No.DUUBRC13422, RC no.DL 5SZ 6773, wheresoever, it is found not withstanding whosoever may be found in possession thereof. The receiver after taking possession of the vehicle shall execute a superdginama in favour of the petitioner bank. Report of the receiver shall be filled in the court on or before the next date of hearing."
Sd/ (Virender Bhatt) ADJ/Delhi 19.07.2010 - (Steps not taken) Present: Sh. Prem Priya Vardhan, counsel for petitioner.
Respondent not served.
Be served again on filing PF/RC/Courier for the NDOH. Put up on 30.07.2010.
Sd/ (Virender Bhatt) ADJ/Delhi 30.07.2010 (Steps not taken) Present: Ms. Ongmit Lepcha, counsel for plaintiff.
Steps not taken for service of defendant. Be taken now within 2 days from today.
Put up on 13.08.2010.
Sd/
(Virender Bhat)
ADJ/Delhi
26.08.2010
Present: None.
Steps not taken for service of the defendant. Be taken within two days from today for the NDOH.
Put up on 07.09.2010.
Sd/ (Virender Bhat) ADJ/Delhi 18.09.2010 ( No steps taken) Case received by transfer from the court of Sh. Virender Bhat, Learned ADJ, Delhi. It be checked and registered. Present: Ld. counsel for petitioner.
Issue notice of the suit to the respondent on 11.11.2010.
Page No. 159/23Sd/ (Hemani Malhotra) ADJ4(west)/Delhi 19.01.2011 Present: Ms. Ongmit Lepcha, ld. counsel for petitioner.
Steps not taken for service of respondent no.1. Issue notice to respondent on filing of PF/RC for 11.02.2011.
Steps be taken within 3 days from today. Last and final opportunity is granted.
Sd/ (Hemani Malhotra) ADJ4(west)/Delhi 11.02.2011 Present: Ld. counsel for petitioner.
Issue notice to the respondent on filing of PF/RC for 14.04.2011.
Last and final opportunity is given.
Sd/ (Hemani Malhotra) ADJ4(west)/Delhi 14.05.2011 File is taken up today as 14.04.2011 was declared holiday.
Pr. None for petitioner Steps not taken as reported in terms of last order. It is last opportunity. Be awaited for petitioner.
Sd/ SUJATA KOHLI ADJ04(West)/Delhi 14.05.2011 12.30p.m.
Pr. Counsel for plaintiff Counsel for plaintiff seeks some more time stating some personal Page No. 160/23 difficulty. Though I am not convinced but in the interest of justice last opportunity is extended. Steps be taken within one week in terms of last order by filing PF/RC. To come up for same purpose on 17.08.2011.
Sd/ SUJATA KOHLI ADJ04(West)/Delhi 14.05.2011 08.08.2012 Present: None.
No steps have been taken for the last two dates. Last report was received with the incomplete address. However, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity is being extended to take the steps.
Let court notice be served upon the plaintiff directly for 15.10.2012(NO PF).
Sd/ SUJATA KOHLI ADJ04(West)/Delhi 08.08.2012 07.01.2013 Present: None.
Court Notice had been served for the last date, however, in the interest of justice, let fresh Court Notice be issued to the petitioner to be served through his counsel, returnable for 04.03.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:07.01.2013
04.03.2013
Present: None.
Court notice served.
Be recalled at the end of the list. Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
At 11:35 AM
Page No. 161/23
Present: None.
Recalled at 2:15 PM. Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
AT 2.40 PM
04.03.2013
Present: One Sh. Meer Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate is appearing for
the first time only to withdraw this case, however, without any instruction. However, his Vakalatnama is not on record.
Ld. Counsel is relying on an Authority Letter stated to be issued by the main counsel.
However, either main counsel or duly constituted AR of the plaintiff company shall appear in person to make any statement.
As such, put up for appearance of the main counsel or duly constituted AR of the plaintiff company on 08.04.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:04.03.2013
12.07.2013
Present: None on the second call as well.
Put up again on 04.09.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
04.09.2013
Present: None.
Matter is listed today for appearance of the main counsel or duly constituted AR of the plaintiff, however, none has appeared today due to lawyer' strike.
There is no ground for adjournment, however, only in the interest of justice, put up again for the same purpose now on 27.11.2013.
Page No. 162/23
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
Additional District Judge
SK West: Delhi:04.09.2013
27.11.2013
Present: None.
Put up only for further Orders on 03.12.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
Additional District Judge
SK West: Delhi:27.11.2013
__________________________________________________________________________ C.S. 354/10 HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. Arun Kumar.
Order dated 05.06.2010 (relevant extracts) I accordingly, appoint Sh. Charanjit Singh, Officer of the petitioner bank as receiver with the directions to take back the custody of the Two Wheeler Model TVS Apache RTR 160CC bearing Engine No.JC40E9082592, Chasis No.ME4JC404E98050541 RC no.DL 4SBQ 1029, wheresoever, it is found not withstanding whosoever may be found in possession thereof. The receiver after taking possession of the vehicle shall execute a superdginama in favour of the petitioner bank. Report of the receiver shall be filled in the court on or before the next date of hearing."
Sd/ (Virender Bhatt) ADJ/Delhi 19.07.2010 - (Steps not taken) Present: Sh. Prem Priya Vardhan, counsel for petitioner.
Steps not taken for service of the respondent. Be taken within two days from today for the NDOH. Put up on 30.07.2010.
Sd/ (Virender Bhatt) ADJ/Delhi 30.07.2010 (Steps not taken) Present: Ms. Ongmit Lepcha, counsel for plaintiff.
Page No. 163/23Steps not taken for service of defendant. Be taken now within 2 days from today.
Put up on 13.08.2010.
Sd/
(Virender Bhat)
ADJ/Delhi
26.08.2010
Present: None.
Steps not taken for service of the defendant. Be taken within two days from today for the NDOH.
Put up on 07.09.2010.
Sd/ (Virender Bhat) ADJ/Delhi 18.09.2010 ( No steps taken) Case received by transfer from the court of Sh. Virender Bhat, Learned ADJ, Delhi. It be checked and registered. Present: Ld. counsel for petitioner.
Issue notice of the suit to the respondent on 11.11.2010.
Sd/ (Hemani Malhotra) ADJ4(west)/Delhi 19.01.2011 Present: Ms. Ongmit Lepcha, ld. counsel for petitioner.
Steps not taken for service of respondent no.1. Issue notice to respondent on filing of PF/RC for 11.02.2011.
Steps be taken within 3 days from today. Last and final opportunity is granted.
Sd/ (Hemani Malhotra) ADJ4(west)/Delhi 11.02.2011 Present: Ld. counsel for petitioner.
Issue notice to the respondent on filing of PF/RC for 14.04.2011.
Last and final opportunity is given.
Page No. 164/23Sd/ (Hemani Malhotra) ADJ4(west)/Delhi 14.05.2011 File is taken up today as 14.04.2011 was declared holiday.
Pr. None for petitioner Steps not taken as reported in terms of last order. It is last opportunity. Be awaited for petitioner.
Sd/ SUJATA KOHLI ADJ04(West)/Delhi 14.05.2011 12.30p.m.
Pr. Counsel for plaintiff Counsel for plaintiff seeks some more time stating some personal difficulty. Though I am not convinced but in the interest of justice last opportunity is extended. Steps be taken within one week in terms of last order by filing PF/RC. To come up for same purpose on 17.08.2011.
Sd/ SUJATA KOHLI ADJ04(West)/Delhi 14.05.2011 07.10.2011 Present: None for plaintiff.
Defendant remains unserved.
Let fresh summons be issued on filing of PF/RC at both the addresses or fresh address if any, for 06.01.2012.
Steps be taken within one week.
Sd/ SUJATA KOHLI ADJ04(West)/Delhi 07.10.2011 08.08.2012 Present: None.
Page No. 165/23No steps have been taken for the last two dates. Last report was received with the incomplete address. However, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity is being extended to take the steps.
Let court notice be served upon the plaintiff directly for 15.10.2012(NO PF).
Sd/ SUJATA KOHLI ADJ04(West)/Delhi 08.08.2012 07.01.2013 Present: None.
Court Notice had been served for the last date, however, in the interest of justice, let fresh Court Notice be issued to the petitioner to be served through his counsel, returnable for 04.03.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:07.01.2013
04.03.2013
Present: None.
Court notice served.
Be recalled at the end of the list. Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
At 11:35 AM
Present: None.
Recalled at 2:15 PM. Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
AT 2.40 PM
04.03.2013
Present: One Sh. Meer Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate is appearing for
the first time only to withdraw this case, however, without any instruction. However, his Vakalatnama is not on record.
Ld. Counsel is relying on an Authority Letter stated to be issued by the main counsel.
However, either main counsel or duly constituted AR of the Page No. 166/23 plaintiff company shall appear in person to make any statement.
As such, put up for appearance of the main counsel or duly constituted AR of the plaintiff company on 08.04.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:04.03.2013
12.07.2013
Present: None on the second call as well.
Put up again on 04.09.2013. Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ:WEST: THC 04.09.2013 Present: None.
Matter is listed today for appearance of the main counsel or duly constituted AR of the plaintiff, however, none has appeared today due to lawyer' strike.
There is no ground for adjournment, however, only in the interest of justice, put up again for the same purpose now on 27.11.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
Additional District Judge
SK West: Delhi:04.09.2013
27.11.2013
Present: None.
Put up only for further Orders on 03.12.2013.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
Additional District Judge
SK West: Delhi:27.11.2013
_________________________________________________________________________ Besides even, what was more puzzling was a fact that in some of these exparte Page No. 167/23 awards which were alleged to have been passed by an Arbitrator, neither the arbitrator was available in spite of notices, reminder notices, show cause notices and even bailable warrants which the court was compelled to issue. It was only after issuance of NBW that an arbitrator appeared. Even then arbitral record was not available with the arbitrator.
It was the case of buck being passed from one to the other that the arbitrator claiming that he had handed over the original arbitral record to the DH, however, that the DH denying this. This was apart from the question as to why the arbitrator should have handed over the original record to anyone of the parties particularly the winning party and almost amounting to a court as if a court handing over the original judicial file to the DH after announcing the decision.
Ultimately when the record could not be found, the DH company casually made a statement through its counsel that the award may be set aside. This was the situation in the other different case i.e. Abhishek Chauhan Vs. Kotak Mahindra.
Some of the relevant proceeding sheets therefrom are being reproduced herein to highlight the conduct of the companies as well as arbitrator.
__________________________________________________________________________ In Abhishek Chahaun Vs. Kotak Mahindra C.S.296/11 (THIS CASE HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED BY WAY OF ROUTINE ORDER) 03.02.2012 Present: None.
Proxy counsel Sh. Manoj Jha for counsel for respondent no.1, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
Matter was kept awaited for arbitral record. Proxy counsel states he has brought the record of the Arbitrator, contained in an envelope not bearing any particulars even. Even otherwise any party to any proceeding Page No. 168/23 has no business to produce the original record and the arbitrator, who is almost acting like a judge in the matter should not have handed over the record to the party. It is noted that the concerned arbitrator has not even bothered about this aspect. This entire impartiality of the arbitrator is rendered in doubt in view of the above proceedings and the submission of the ld. counsel for respondent no.1.
Let notice be issued to Ms. Jyoti Mestri, Ld. Sole Arbitrator to appear in person on 10.05.2012. No PF is required.
SD/ (SUJATA KOHLI) ADJ/WEST/DELHI 16.08.2012 Present: None for the Petitioner/Objector.
No steps have been taken for issuance of notice. In the interest of justice, matter be kept awaited and be recalled at 2.00 PM.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:16.08.2012
16.08.2012
Present: Ld. counsel for petitioner/objector Sh. Hemant Chaudhary
alongwith petitioner/objector.
Proxy counsel for respondent/DH Sh.Manoj Jha alongwith AR Sh. T. Chauhan.
Rejoinder is being filed on behalf of the petitioner/objector alongwith new vakalatnama. No reply has been filed till date by the respondent/DH, even though appearance has been put on their behalf long ago ever since 15th November 2011.
Proxy counsel for respondent is simply citing a personal difficulty of the counsel. However, the said ground is not relevant for the entire period since November 2011 till date. There is no sufficient cause to extend any further time. Opportunity for reply for the respondent/DH is being closed.
However, it is further noted that notice had been directed to be issued to Ms. Jyoti Mestry, Ld. Sole Arbitrator/Advocate has either been received back nor the report is proper. However, this pertains tot he previous ahlmad who has already been transferred.
Let notice be issued in terms of the order dated 03.02.2012 Page No. 169/23 immediately today itself from court and put up for personal appearance of Ms. Jyoti Mestri, Ld. Sole Arbitrator/Advocate.
The matter shall also be listed for final arguments. List on 10.10.2012.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/16.08.2012 11.01.2013 Present: Sh. M.K. Neeraj, Ld. Counsel for Petitioner/Objector.
Sh. Ashok Kumar Singh, stating himself to be the counsel for respondent.
This objection petition is listed once again for final arguments, but only adjournment is being sought on behalf of Kotak Mahindra Bank.
However, no sufficient cause is being made out at all except that counsel is stating that he is the new counsel in this case. It is seen that even his Vakalatnama is not on record till date.
However, in the interest of justice, one final opportunity is being extended for final arguments. In case of no arguments on the NDOH by either side, matter will be reserved for Orders on the basis of the merits.
In the meantime, it is noted once again that the Court Notice issued twice to Ld. Arbitrator, but same has not returned either way. The matter assumes importance as Ld. Arbitrator had sent the record through the party and it would be very necessary for the Ld. Arbitrator to appear in person.
Ahlmad is directed to issue the Court Notice to Ld. Arbitrator to appear in person to be served through Bar Council of Delhi alongwith copy of this Order.
List for personal appearance of Ld. Arbitrator as well as for final arguments on 16.02.2013 as last opportunity.
SD/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:11.01.2013"
Page No. 170/23
20.04.2013
Present: Plaintiff/objector in person.
None for respondent.
Main counsels for either sides are not available. It is noted that court notices issued to Kotak Mahindra Bank and even to the Ld. Arbitrator have remained unreturned. Let fresh court notices be issued to the Kotak Mahindra Bank and also to the Ld. Arbitrator.
However, it is made clear that the matter would be coming up for final arguments on the next date i.e. on 01.08.2013.
sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
ADJ:WEST: THC
SK DELHI:20.04.2013
01.08.2013
Present: Ld. counsel for petitioner/objector Sh. N.K. Neeraj alongwith
petitioner/objector.
Ld. counsel for respondent Sh. Umesh Pandey. Arguments have been addressed on behalf of the petitioner/objector. In fact the main point of the arguments being that there was no arbitration agreement whatsoever between the parties.
Secondly on merits there was hardly any liability of the petitioner/objector barely Rs.10,000/ on the outstanding amount of the credit card. Earlier there had been a settlement for a sum of Rs.40,000/ out of which he had paid Rs.30,000/ and remaining was only Rs.10,000/.
Record perused. There is no original agreement whatsoever on record.
It is also coming to notice that there is no detailed statement of account and on the basis of which it could be said that an award had been passed. However, ld. counsel for respondent is seeking adjournment stating that he has been engaged recently. He is directed to file the vakalatanama only after obtaining NOC of the previous counsel.
At this stage, some discrepancies are coming to the notice of the court that the arbitrator who was required to send the arbitral record directly from her office, for some reasons she had handed over the record to the respondent who was party in this case and it is the respondent who submitted the record before the court and that itself raises question mark Page No. 171/23 on the impartiality of the arbitrator.
Court notice had been issued to the arbitrator but same has returned unserved. The report is not satisfactory at all. It is also noted that in the said arbitral record, no original agreement is found and only photocopies are there.
Let this record be put back in a new sealed envelope with the seal of this court.
Put up for remaining arguments on behalf of the respondent on 21.09.2013.
sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) DV ADJ/WEST/DELHI/01.08.2013 21.09.2013 Present: Petitioner/Objector in person.
Sh. Umesh Pandey, Advocate for respondent. Matter is listed today for remaining arguments on the part of the respondent/Kotak Mahindra Bank, however, at the outset, a new Vakalatnama is being filed on record stated purportedly on behalf of respondent/Kotak Mahindra Bank by the counsel Sh. Umesh Pandey.
However, the said Vakalatnama is bearing many interpolation by fluid at the name of parties, for whom the present counsel has been engaged, and even the date of appointment, there is no official stamp of the respondent/Kotak Mahindra Bank, the name of the Court as well as entire particulars of the Vakalatnama have been changed.
The relevant portions are being circled in red for record from point A to H. Vakalantama is being kept on record for further future reference.
Let Court Notice be issued to respondent/Kotak Mahindra Bank directing the person who signed this Vakalatnama on the place of client to be present in person alongwith Board Resolution in his favour. In case, he produces only a Power of Attorney, he will have to produce the Board Resolution in favour of the Executant of the Power of Attorney.
It is once again being observed there are serious lapses in the entire proceedings in addition to the previous observations.
In the meantime, petitioner/objector is stating that the Arbitrator had deliberately furnished her incorrect address on her letter head.
Page No. 172/23Let fresh and correct address of the Arbirator be placed on record during the course of the day.
Arguments have been heard, Certain queries have been put to the new counsel, however, new counsel is not prepared, and since he has not obtained the 'NOC' from the previous counsel, he seeks adjournment.
However, it is seen that the dates and days are being given as per choice and convenience of all the counsels and parties, and as such, no sufficient cause is being made out for any further adjournment. As such, opportunity for arguments is now being closed.
However, liberty is being extended to Ld. Counsel for respondent for filing of written submissions with bulleted points not exceeding three pages, and not beyond the period of seven days from today.
Matter is being reserved for Orders on 10.10.2013. Ahlmad is directed to put the 'so called arbitral record' into a sealed envelope.
Sd/
(SUJATA KOHLI)
Additional District Judge
SK West: Delhi:21.09.2013
10.10.2013
Statement of Sh. Iqrar Chauhan, Deputy Manager of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. presently posted at G/59, 1113, B/2, 4, 5, 7, Local Shopping Complex, Pamposh Enclave, Greater Kailash Part 1, New Delhi. ON SA I am the Deputy Manager in the said bank. I have file photocopy of my original office ICard, same is being Ex.R1(OSR).
I have seen the vakalatnama dated 01.08.2013 on the judicial file. I have also seen all the alterations made on the places now being circled in red at points A to H. I state that I have not done all these alterations and it must be counsel who has done. I have not seen the counsel doing all these alterations. The vakalatnama is bearing my signature at point X. It is correct that vakalatnama is neither bearing any official stamp of the company nor bearing my official stamp.
Page No. 173/23I had engaged M/s Sethi and Associate Law firm who are on our penal.
We put company stamp on the vakalatanama only when lawyers asked.
I cannot identify the signatures on the vakalatnama and there are three four advocates in the firm.
I also cannot identify the signature circled in red now being marked at point I. I state that there is a format of the vakalatnama and sometimes it is changed.
CQ: I again bring to your notice that the alterations in respect of the format are particulars of the case and of the court. What do you have to say?
Ans: There is another connected case of Kotak Mahindra Bank and both vakalatnamas were executed together and that is why these alterations were required to be made. It is Mr. Umesh Pandey who told me that since both vakalatnamas had been executed together, he was going to make the alterations by putting white fluid.
I am aware that alterations always require initials and dates. I was not present and these alterations were not done in my presence.
Copy of the resolution brought by me today is only a copy. It is correct that it has not been certified by the company secretary. I may be given liberty to produce the duly certified copy or original minute book on NDOH.
I have made this statement vol. and of my own free will.
Sd/ (SUJATA KOHLI) RO & AC ADJ/WEST/DELHI/10.10.2013"