Delhi District Court
M.K. Saxena vs . Abhishek Sinha on 1 November, 2012
M.K. Saxena Vs. Abhishek Sinha CC No.5908/11 01.11.2012
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused absent.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 At 03.17 p.m. Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused absent.
Complainant has filed his fresh address.
A Non Bailable Warrant be issued against the accused alongwith a Notice to Surety for 11.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 Satpal Garg Vs. Ms. Veena Kohli CC No.3437/10 01.11.2012 Present: Parties in person.
They are seeking passover for want of counsel.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 At 03.23 p.m. Present: Complainant in person.
Accused with counsel.
Complainant is still seeking passover on the ground that his counsel will come.
I do not find any justification to give any further time to the complainant.
Last opportunity for the complainant to participate in the cross-examination subject to a cost of Rs.2,000/-. Rs.1,000/- to be paid to the complainant and Rs.1,000/- to be deposited with DLSA.
List on 19.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 Naveen Kumar Vs. Rajesh Sethi Halwai CC No.1686/1 01.11.2012 Present: None.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 At 03.25 p.m. Present: None.
Complaint is dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 A.K. Dutta Vs. Ramashankar @ Manoj Singh CC No.5714/11, 5716/11, 5715/11 & 5713/11 01.11.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
These are four connected matters.
Process U/s 83 Cr.P.C. for the last date has been received back unexecuted.
Affidavit of complainant can be read in evidence by virtue of Section 145(1) NI Act. Therefore, there is no necessity to proceed U/s 299 Cr.P.C.
File may be taken up whenever accused is apprehended.
It appears that copy of last order has not been sent by the office to the concerned SHO. Let the same be sent in terms of the last order.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 M/s Asahi Ropes (P) Ltd. Vs. M/s M.J. Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
CC No.6973/1201.11.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Complainant is exempted as applied.
Adjourned for pre-summoning evidence on 03.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 M/s Ambit Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Sonika Saini CC No.6329/11 01.11.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
He has filed an application for return of documents for dating the same by the Oath Commissioner. He has also prayed for return of earlier affidavit.
Let the same be returned as per list of documents after due formalities.
Ld. Counsel submits that he will file the evidence today itself.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 M/s Gora Mal Hari Ram Ltd. Vs. M/s Ajay Kiryana Store CC No.5511/11 01.11.2012 Present: AR of the complainant company with counsel.
He has filed an application for return of documents for dating the same by the Oath Commissioner. He has also prayed for return of earlier affidavit.
Let the same be returned as per list of documents after due formalities.
Ld. Counsel submits that he will file the evidence today itself.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 M/s Gora Mal Hari Ram Ltd. Vs. M/s Ajay Kiryana Store CC No.5511/11 01.11.2012 After lunch time.
Present: AR of the Complainant company with counsel.
AR has filed his affidavit in evidence alongwith documents exhibited by the Oath Commissioner. Affidavit is Mark-R. Having heard the ld. counsel and having gone through the record, I am satisfied that a case has been made out U/s 138 NI Act against the accused.
Accused be summoned through all modes for 02.02.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 M/s Ambit Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kulbhushan Saini CC No.6331/11 01.11.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
He has filed an application for return of documents for dating the same by the Oath Commissioner. He has also prayed for return of earlier affidavit.
Let the same be returned as per list of documents after due formalities.
Ld. Counsel submits that he will file the evidence today itself.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 Ashok Kumar Vijay Kumar Vs. Ms. Geeta CC No.6659/12 01.11.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
One Manav Mudgal, Asstt. Manager, South India Bank is present and has filed certified copies of Account Opening form and list of cheque number issued to the Geeta. No one is present on behalf of Syndicate Bank. Let a witness from Syndicate Bank be called with record of dispatch of cheque returning memo of the present case.
List on 10.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 ASP Sealing Products Ltd. Vs. M/s Amit Fabricators & Anr.
CC No.1674/1001.11.2012 Present: Proxy counsel for the complainant.
He submits that ld. main counsel is not available.
Last opportunity.
List on 13.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 Bajaj Electricals Ltd. Vs. Piyush Gupta CC No.6385/11 01.11.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
An exemption application has been filed on behalf of the Complainant.
Earlier summons not received back. Be awaited.
There is no report in respect of issuance of summons.
Be issued for 22.02.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 M/s Capital Trust Ltd. Vs. Abdul Salam CC No.4970/10 01.11.2012 Present: None.
It appears that returned notice issued to the complainant is on record which was duly served. It appears that no one has been appearing on behalf of the complainant for the last several dates. State should not be burdened with such litigations where complainant is not diligently following the case. Complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 Jasbir Singh Nagpal Vs. Niraj Kumar Gupta CC No.6597/12 01.11.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Summons sent by post received back with a refusal.
Summons may be declared to be served U/s 144(2) NI Act.
Bailable Warrant in the sum of Rs.40,000/- be issued against the accused for 24.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 M/s Kamdhenu Enterprises Vs. M/s Bajaj Products CC No.6738/12 01.11.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Summons received back with a report company has shifted to Bahadurgarh.
Ld. counsel for the complainant, however, submits that separate company is running in Bahadurgarh and the accused company is still in Nangloi.
In the given circumstances, summons be again issued to be served through the PS :
Nangloi, Delhi for 11.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 M/s Jay & Co. India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Vindair Engineers P. Ltd. & Ors.CC No.6732/12
01.11.2012 Present: Accountant of the complainant company with proxy counsel.
He submits that they have not received payment in this case.
He is seeking some time for pre-summoning evidence.
List on 13.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 M/s Max Rollers Vs. Rajesh Kumar CC No.6178/1 01.11.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Proxy counsel for the accused.
It appears that Ld. Revisional Court has given one opportunity to the accused to cross- examine the complainant on a limited point subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-.
Ld. counsel for the complainant submits that they have received the cost from the accused.
An exemption application has been filed on behalf of the accused on medical grounds supported with a certificate.
It appears that on several occasions, the exemption applications/stay of NBW have been filed on behalf of the accused on medical grounds. The circumstances do not inspire confidence. This Doctor be called alongwith the complete record of the accused.
Date for cross-examination is fixed as 12.12.2012. In case of failure of accused to cross- examine the complainant, no further opportunity can be given in terms of Ld. Revisional Court order.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 M/s Metawares (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Raju Gehani CC No.985/10 01.11.2012 Present: AR of the complainant.
Accused absent.
NBW unexecuted.
Even earlier NBW has been received back unexecuted.
In the entire facts and circumstances, let a Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. be issued against the accused for 12.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 O.P. Verma Vs. Rakesh Anand CC No.4463/10 01.11.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Still there is no report in respect of compliance of any order.
Concerned Asstt. Ahlmad shall make a report in respect of filing of process fee and also for issuance of process.
Earlier order be compliance with for 18.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 Raj Kumar Vs. Vinod @ Vinod Pradhan CC No.6187/11 01.11.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused absent.
On the last date, a Clerk of the ld. counsel for the complainant was present and had filed an exemption application.
Such practice was deprecated on the last date. A cost of Rs.10,000/- was also imposed upon the accused. The accused is again absent and unfortunately today again a clerk of the ld. counsel is present and has filed an exemption application on behalf of the accused with a medical card dated 31.10.2012. On the last date also a copy of medical paper was filed.
The earlier history of the case is also not good so far as conduct of the accused is concerned. When it was found that accused was deliberately avoiding the summons, a Bailable Warrant was issued which was duly executed but only a counsel appeared on Memo of appearance with a frivolous exemption application whereupon NBW was issued. However, in the meantime accused appeared with application for cancellation of NBW and he was directed to deposit the penalty amount of Rs.20,000/- against which the accused approached the Ld. Revisional Court who reduced the penalty to Rs.10,000/-. Subsequently accused deposited the reduced penalty on 15.09.2012. Unfortunately accused is absenting himself.
The conduct of the accused does not inspire confidence. Even otherwise this exemption application cannot be allowed as the same is not signed by any person. The application is dismissed. In view of the conduct of the accused, let NBW be issued against the accused and also a Notice be issued to the Surety. Warrant of Attachment in the sum of Rs.10,000/- be also issued by virtue of Section-431 r/w Section-421 Cr.P.C. against the accused to recover the cost imposed on the last date. List on 20.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 Rajesh Vs. Gadrab Sain CC No.6063/11, 6052/11, 6053/11 & 6054/11 01.11.2012 Present: One Suraj, Law Student on behalf of the complainant.
Accused in person.
These are four connected matters.
Accused submits that he has paid the entire amount to the complainant.
Suraj submits that complainant is not well today.
Adjourned to 06.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 Ramvir Nagar Vs. Prabhu Dayal CC No.6267/11 01.11.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Surender Kumar, Clerk from PNB is present and has filed computerized Account Statement.
Adjourned for pre-summoning evidence for 10.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 Rishi Pal Singh Vs. Satya Narayan Yadav CC No.6280/11 01.11.2012 Present: None.
NBW issued against the accused received back unexecuted.
It appears that accused is deliberately avoiding his appearance.
Let a Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. be issued against the accused for 16.02.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 M/s Sarthak Advertisement and Communication Ltd. & M/s Synno Ecom Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
CC No.3505/1001.11.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Accused absent.
Notice to Surety unserved.
Ld. counsel submits that Surety is a Govt. Servant.
It appears that Surety had provided a copy of Canteen Smart Card. Let a copy thereof be sent to SHO who shall obtain present whereabouts of the Surety and then serve the notice upon him. Earlier Bailable Warrants were unexecuted. However, it appears that same address has been provided by the accused in his bail bond. Let NBW be also issued against the accused for 08.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 Sobit Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Radha Raman Bansal CC No.5894/11 01.11.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Summons be awaited.
Fresh summons be issued for 22.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 Ms. Usha Nischal Vs. Tanuj Kumar CC No.2741/10 01.11.2012 Present: None.
Warrant of Attachment to the Surety unexecuted.
There is no report, however, in respect of registration of FIR against the accused U/s 174A IPC.
Let the direction be complied with by the police officials within two days. For this purpose copy of statement of Constable Sher Singh be sent to the concerned SHO who shall take appropriate steps considering the fact that by non appearance accused has committed an offence U/s 174A first part IPC and further intimate this court.
File may be taken whenever the accused is apprehended.
File may be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 Well Trans Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lakhani India Ltd. & Ors. CC No.6736/12, 6711/12, 6712/12 & 6735/12 01.11.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
These are four connected matters.
Summons issued to the company unserved but a bare perusal of the report goes to show that accused is deliberately avoiding the process. Some processes sent by post received back unserved. A bare perusal of the report shows that accused are deliberately avoiding the processes. Four processes sent by post atleast have been received back with a remark lene se inkar. Even further seven AD cards have been received back and six are having the stamp of accused company. Summons may be declared to be served on the company and individual accused U/s 144(2) NI Act in view of the AD cards and refusal of some envelopes.
As such a Bailable Warrant in the sum of Rs.1 lac be issued against the accused P.D. Lakhani.
One opportunity is given to the accused company to appear through representative.
List on 20.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 Ashok Ahuja Vs. Comfort Hospitality Services and Ors. CC No.6498/A 01.11.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Counsel for the accused.
An exemption application has been filed on behalf of the accused.
Both the counsels submit that parties have settled the matter for Rs.80,000/- and now remaining payment Rs.42,600/- which shall be paid on 20.12.2012.
At request, list on 20.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 M/s Sanam Valves & Tubes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Indo Tech Corporation (India) CC No.4030/10 01.11.2012 Present: AR of the complainant.
Accused absent.
AR submits that accused has not made the payment despite settlement in Mediation Cell.
Accused is not appearing for last several dates.
NBW be issued against the accused for 19.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 Jitender Kumar Vs. Kiran Ashthana CC No.4094/10 01.11.2012 Present: Complainant in person.
Accused in person.
It appears that opportunity to lead defence evidence was given to the accused vide order dated 29.08.2012 with a direction that accused should take necessary steps within 20 days therefrom. Accused failed to take any such steps and on the adjourned date only exemption application was filed by the ld. counsel for the accused and ten days time was sought which was duly given. Unfortunately till date accused has not taken any steps in defence. No justification has been provided by the accused except that ld. counsel is unable to come today as he is not well. I consider that accused could have filed list of witnesses or application for summoning of witnesses or written request U/s 315 Cr.P.C. for her own examination as a witness if so advised. This could have been done sufficiently before this date of hearing. No steps have been taken by the accused. In the given circumstances, there is no reason to give any further opportunity to the accused. Opportunity to lead defence evidence is, therefore, closed.
In terms of Step-IV in Rajesh Agarwal v State & Another 171(2010) DLT 51, list for final arguments on 06.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 Suraj Parkash Jain Vs. Vidya Nandan Jha CC No.5816/10 01.11.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Counsel for the accused.
An exemption application has been filed on behalf of the accused on the ground that he has gone to Bihar.
Ld. counsel for the accused further submits that accused is willing to settle the matter and before the next date settlement would arrive at with the complainant.
In the given circumstances, exemption is allowed subject to furnishing of necessary documents.
List on 22.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 Lalit Maggo Vs. Ms. Sonu Oberoi CC No.843/10 01.11.2012 Present: Complainant with proxy counsel.
Accused with proxy counsel.
Matter is listed for final arguments.
The matter pertains to the year 2003.
Today an application U/s 311 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the complainant to examine one bank witness to prove the fact that accused and her near relative had deposited the amount with the account of complainant.
Ld. Proxy counsel for the complainant submits that since accused had denied the transaction about depositing some amount in the bank account of complainant, the complainant is entitled to examine the clerk from the bank. Opposed by ld. proxy counsel for the accused.
I have heard the ld. counsel on both the sides and gone through the record.
I consider that such application should not be allowed at the time of final arguments. More so when case is very old and sufficient opportunity was available with the complainant to bring his any other witness. It appears that complainant's evidence was closed in affirmative on 23.05.2008 by the statement of Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, Ld. counsel before the Ld. Predecessor. The same Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya is present before the court today as per her own submission. It appears that three witnesses have been examined in defence. I consider that even if this application was to be filed on behalf of the complainant, it could have been filed before this date which might have saved a date of hearing from being frustrated. Application U/s 311 Cr.P.C. should not be allowed where a party is trying to filling any lacunae of his case. Section-311 Cr.P.C. has not been incorporated to provide any benefit to a party who has not been diligent in the case. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Vivek Madhok Vs. State of Delhi Crl.M.C. 2076/2012 and Crl.M.A. No.7212/2012 dated 30.07.2012 has after considering several judgments declined to allow application U/s 311 Cr.P.C.
Application is dismissed.
Last opportunity for the parties to advance arguments.
List on 16.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 R.P. Garg Vs. Durga Parshad Sharma CC No.5456/11 01.11.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused in person.
Ld. counsel for the complainant is ready to advance arguments but ld. counsel for the accused is not available. Accused submits that his ld. counsel is not well. Ld. counsel for the complainant is not opposing the adjournment.
List on 09.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 Bhaskar Kedia Vs. Chiman Lal CC No.847/10, 848/10, 850/10, 851/10 & 2767/10 01.11.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused in person.
Ld. counsel for the accused was available in the morning but had to leave.
An application filed by the complainant for depositing the diet money is on record.
These are five connected matters.
Ld. counsel for the complainant submits that he had applied for certified copies on 13.08.2012 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi but is yet to receive the same.
The application is disposed of with the direction that diet money shall be paid on the spot. All the directions to be followed within three days failing which opportunity shall be closed.
List on 26.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 M/s Shib Dass Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s RST Clean Air Equipments & Anr.
CC No.4127/1001.11.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
He has filed an application for return of documents for dating the same by the Oath Commissioner. He has also prayed for return of earlier affidavit.
Let the same be returned as per list of documents after due formalities.
Ld. Counsel submits that he will file the evidence today itself.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 Om Parkash Vs. Dharam Pal CC No.4675/10 01.11.2012 File taken up on an application for settlement.
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused in person.
Complainant submits that accused has paid Rs.1,33,000/- in terms of compromise and accused will pay the remaining amount on first day of every alternative month.
At request of both the sides, list on 02.01.2013.
Earlier date i.e. 01.12.2012 is cancelled.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 Puran Bisht Vs. CreativeMind Consultants and Training Academy CC No.6363/11 01.11.2012 File taken up on an application U/s 145(2) NI Act.
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Counsel for the accused.
Ld. counsel for the accused has also filed written arguments. Copy supplied to the complainant.
I have heard the both the ld. counsels.
On the submissions made, accused is allowed to cross-examine the complainant on the limited point i.e. Cheque No.426431 has not been issued by the accused himself and no liability was towards the accused on this cheque and the same has been filled up by the third person and that accused has already paid Rs.23,000/- to the complainant.
List on date fixed i.e. 07.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 M/s Paras Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Sangam Aluminium Fab & Anr.
CC No.4611/10
01.11.2012
Present: AR of the complainant.
Accused with proxy counsel.
Ld. counsel for the accused has filed his new Vakalatnama.
Matter is listed for pronouncement of judgment.
Vide separate judgment, accused is convicted for the offence charged.
List for arguments on sentence on 08.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012 M/s Nidhi International Vs. M/s Austel Construction CC No.6994/12 01.11.2012 Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
Present: AR of the complainant with proxy counsel.
At request, list on 21.11.2012 for consideration.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 01.11.2012