Delhi District Court
A.H.R. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. vs . Surender Kumar on 8 February, 2012
A.H.R. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Surender Kumar C.C.No.2835/10 08.02.2012
Present: AR of the complainant.
Accused with counsel.
Accused furnished bail bond and surety bond as required vide last order. Accepted.
At request of ld. counsel for the accused, be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/08.02.2012
At 11.45 a.m.
Present: Both the parties with their counsel.
Accusation explained over to the accused.
His Plea and Examination recorded separately.
Put up for defence evidence for 11.04.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/08.02.2012
Ajay Satija Vs. Deusch Mediquip (P) Ltd. & Ors.
C.C.No.1638/10
08.02.2012
Present: None.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/08.02.2012
At 03.45 p.m.
Present: None.
Dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/08.02.2012
M/s Bansal Credits Ltd. Vs. Satpal
C.C.No.5283/10
08.02.2012
Present: AR of the complainant.
Process Server Constable Sunil has sent a request as he has gone to UP for treatment of his mother.
SHO has sent a request for personal exemption on the ground of law and order management.
It, however, appears that there was no direction for personal appearance of the SHO. He was only directed to ensure the presence of the Process Server.
Let Process Server be called afresh for 01.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/08.02.2012
Ms. Farha Deeba Vs. Sufiana Tarannum
C.C.No.5978/11 & 5981/11
08.02.2012
Present: Complainant in person.
These are two connected matters.
Bailable Warrant received back unexecuted with a report kabhi kabhi aati hai.
Let a Non Bailable Warrant be issued against the accused for 02.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/08.02.2012 Jagdish Gupta Vs. M/s PSG Developers & Engineers Ltd. & Ors.
C.C.No.2597/10
08.02.2012
Present: None for the complainant.
Accused No.6 in person.
NBW issued against accused No.2 received back unexecuted.
However, there is no report in respect of issuance of any process against other accused persons.
Ahlmad to clarify.
It appears that on an application moved by the accused No.6, cross-examination was allowed. However, complainant is not appearing today.
One more opportunity is being given.
Processes against other accused persons be issued as per earlier directions.
List on 09.04.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/08.02.2012
M/s B.R. Agrotech Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Ahuja
C.C.No.6232/11 & 6233/11
08.02.2012
Present: AR of the complainant.
These are two connected matters.
Summons received back with a report kabhi kabhi aate hain.
Summons sent by post received back with a report bar bar puchhne par prapt karta ka pata nahi chalta.
Clearly, accused is deliberately avoiding the process.
Let a Bailable Warrant in the sum of Rs.10,000/- against the accused be issued for 02.07.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/08.02.2012
Rakesh Vachher Vs. Manoj Gaur
C.C.No.6064/11
08.02.2012
Present: None.
Summons issued to the accused received back with a report with a report Manoj Gaur naam ka koi nahi hai.
It appears that the legal demand notice sent by the complainant was served upon the same address of the accused.
Clearly, accused is avoiding the process.
Let fresh summons be issued through the concerned SHO.
Complainant may also assist for 03.07.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/08.02.2012 M/s Roopshree Creations Vs. Niranjan Kumar Nagia C.C.No.5211/10, 5222/10, 5225/10, 5204/10 & 5224/10 08.02.2012 Present: None for the complainant.
Mr. A.K. Dey, Proxy counsel for the accused.
These are five connected matters.
An exemption application has been filed on behalf of the accused on the ground that accused has to appear today in Dwarka Court in a CBI matter and, therefore, cannot appear today.
Ld. Proxy counsel submits that certificate of attendance will be filed on the next date.
In such circumstances, exemption is allowed.
It appears that matter is listed for further cross-examination of the complainant. However, complainant is not present.
One more opportunity is being given.
List on 24.04.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/08.02.2012
Atul Jain Vs. Dinesh Chand Gupta
C.C.No.4968/10
08.02.2012
Statement of Accused, Dinesh Chand Gupta (recalled for cross-examination). On S.A. That I and father of the complainant were engaged in the same trade and had business rivalry with each other. There were cut throat competition between them. Therefore, the complainant and his father, namely, Suraj Bhan Jain used to pick up quarrels with me on petty matters and extended threats personally as well as on telephonically to kidnap and murder of me and my family members. The matter was reported to the police but police instead of taking action used to issue warning against the complainant and his father but the attitude and behaviour of the complainant and his father never changed despite police warning. I never took any friendly loan as alleged of Rs.62,000/- from the complainant. I do not have any friendly relation with the complainant. I was not in need of the alleged amount in the month of July 2004. There was no such transaction took place between me and complainant. Further I had neither issued nor gave any cheque to the complainant towards the repayment of alleged amount. The cheque in question came into the possession of the complainant as on 27.10.2004, the complainant and his father, namely, Suraj Bhan Jain alongwith 05-06 gunda elements forcibly entered in my property and given beating to me and complainant and his father with the help of Gunda elements at the point of knife procured eight cheques bearing No.541571, No. 541574 to 541480 all drawn on State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, New Rohtak Road, Delhi of different amounts and further extorted me and obtained blank signed papers, stamp papers including my aforesaid cheques. In the meantime, one Sri Kishan and other people of the locality were gathered present there and the above said persons succeeded to run away from the spot. Thereafter, I went to the local police with Sri Kishan but the police did not take any action. In the month of December-2004, I sent a reply of the legal demand notice of the counsel Sh. B.N. Gupta which was sent to me on 25.11.2004 by him which is Exh.DW1/A through my counsel Sh. S.K. Yadav which has been duly served to the counsel of the complainant. The registered postal envelope is Exh.DW1/B. Thereafter, I filed the complaint case U/s 323/452/342/384/506 IPC before the concerned of court of Anand Parbat and the complainant and his father have been summoned and are facing trial. The copy of the complaint to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 10.12.2004 is Exh.DW1/C. Thus, the aforesaid cheques including the cheques No.541574, 541575 and 541576 are misused by the complainant in the present case. I further say that on 26.08.2004, my banker had issued the cheque book consisting of aforesaid cheque numbers. The said photocopy of the said Acknowledgment issued by State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur which has been issued by the said banker on 26.08.2004 is Exh.DW1/D (OSR). The cheques in question are misused by the complainant and his father and I am not liable for any damages or claims by the complainant. The complainant has filed the false case against me.
Cross-examination deferred at request of the complainant.
RO & AC
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/08.02.2012
Suraj Bhan Jain Vs. Dinesh Chand Gupta
C.C.No.4969/10
08.02.2012
Statement of Accused, Dinesh Chand Gupta (recalled for cross-examination after lunch).
On S.A. XXXXX by Mr. V.N. Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
I have not given in writing in my bank about the cheques being forcibly taken by Suiraj Bhan Jain and his son Atul Jain about not encashing the same from 27.10.2004 till December-2004. (Vol. I have orally told the bank on the same day i.e. 27.10.2004). I have not got entered my complaint in writing to any officer of the bank. I have given in writing to the complainant on 27.10.2004 itself for not presenting the cheques forcibly taken by him. I have placed the same in a criminal court but I have not filed the same in the present case. I do not remember whether I have filed such writing for not presenting the case in the present case. I sent to Atul Jain and Suraj Bhan Jain in writing through UPC. I have not placed the copy of the UPC in the present case. I cannot tell the date and the place of the death of Sri Kishan. I have not placed on record any residential proof of Sri Kishan. I have not given in writing any complaint to the concerned SHO or higher authorities about taking of cheques forcibly by the complainant after 27.10.2004 till date except through UPC receipt dated 27.10.2004. I got the complaint served to the SHO, Anand Parbat on 27.10.2004 through the UPC from Karol Bagh post office. It is wrong to suggest that I have got the UPC receipt fabricated through the connivance of Karol Bagh post office. It is wrong to suggest that I have filed a false complaint in the month of December-2004 in order to rig out the liability of payment of cheques to the complainant. The cheques Exh.CW1/2, Exh.CW1/5, Exh.CW1/8 and Exh.CW1/11 are signed by me. The amount in all the cheques are also filled in by me. It is wrong to suggest that I have filled the dates and name in the cheques. It is wrong to suggest that I have taken a loan of Rs.58,000/- from the complainant and I gave these cheques to the complainant towards repayment of the loan amount. It is wrong to suggest that I gave these cheques voluntarily. (Vol. These cheques were taken from me forcibly). It is correct that I have received a legal demand notice Exh.CW1/13. I was in the business of supply of bread. Complainant also used to do the business of coal depot. (Vol. The complainant used to do the business of supply of bread in morning hours). It is wrong to suggest that complainant never used to do the business of supply of bread. I am not paying Income Tax nor I have got any Sales Tax number of my shop. I did not give in writing the complaint to the police about my rivalry business with the complainant. I asked the police orally about the said rivalry. I have not mentioned in my complaint or in my defence evidence about the date, month and year of lodging such complaint with the police. I did not get myself medically examined from any Doctor on 27.10.2004. My residence is thickly populated. I cannot tell how many people have gathered on 27.10.2004 when the complainant and other persons entered my house for taking cheques forcibly. It is wrong to suggest that complainant and myself never used to quarrel. I cannot remember the date, month and year when the complainant gave threat personally on telephone to kidnap and murder myself and my family members. I used to live in Anand Parbat around the year 1990. It is wrong to suggest that complainant, his father Suraj Bhan Jain never entered my house on 27.10.2004 and forcibly took the cheques. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely and I have to give the cheque amount to the complainant. It is wrong to suggest that I did not give the cheques amount even after receipt of legal demand notice Exh.CW1/13. It is wrong to suggest that I gave the cheques to Suraj Bhan Jain and his son Atul Jain on the dates mentioned in the cheques.
RO & AC
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/08.02.2012
Atul Jain Vs. Dinesh Chand Gupta
C.C.No.4968/10
08.02.2012
Statement of Accused, Dinesh Chand Gupta (recalled for cross-examination after lunch).
On S.A. XXXXX by Mr. V.N. Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
I have not given in writing in my bank about the cheques being forcibly taken by Atul Jain and about not encashing the same from 27.10.2004 till December-2004. (Vol. I have orally told the bank on the same day i.e. 27.10.2004). I have not got entered my complaint in writing to any officer of the bank. I have given in writing to the complainant on 27.10.2004 itself for not presenting the cheques forcibly taken by him. I have placed the same in a criminal court but I have not filed the same in the present case. I do not remember whether I have filed such writing for not presenting the case in the present case. I sent to Atul Jain and Suraj Bhan Jain in writing through UPC. I have not placed the copy of the UPC in the present case. I cannot tell the date and the place of the death of Sri Kishan. I have not placed on record any residential proof of Sri Kishan. I have not given in writing any complaint to the concerned SHO or higher authorities about taking of cheques forcibly by the complainant after 27.10.2004 till date except through UPC receipt dated 27.10.2004. I got the complaint served to the SHO, Anand Parbat on 27.10.2004 through the UPC from Karol Bagh post office. It is wrong to suggest that I have got the UPC receipt fabricated through the connivance of Karol Bagh post office. It is wrong to suggest that I have filed a false complaint in the month of December-2004 in order to wrig out the liability of payment of cheques to the complainant. The cheques Exh.CW1/2, Exh.CW1/5 and Exh.CW1/8 are signed by me. The amount in all the cheques are also filled in by me. It is wrong to suggest that I have filled the dates and name in the cheques. It is wrong to suggest that I have taken a loan of Rs.62,000/- from the complainant and I gave these cheques to the complainant towards repayment of the loan amount. It is wrong to suggest that I gave these cheques voluntarily. (Vol. These cheques were taken from me forcibly). It is correct that I have received a legal demand notice Exh.CW1/10. I was in the business of supply of bread. Complainant also used to do the business of coal depot. (Vol. The complainant used to do the business of supply of bread in morning hours). It is wrong to suggest that complainant never used to do the business of supply of bread. I am not paying Income Tax nor I have got any Sales Tax number of my shop. I did not give in writing the complaint to the police about my rivalry business with the complainant. I asked the police orally about the said rivalry. I have not mentioned in my complaint or in my defence evidence about the date, month and year of lodging such complaint with the police. I did not get myself medically examined from any Doctor on 27.10.2004. My residence is thickly populated. I cannot tell how many people have gathered on 27.10.2004 when the complainant and other persons entered my house for taking cheques forcibly. It is wrong to suggest that complainant and myself never used to quarrel. I cannot remember the date, month and year when the complainant gave threat personally on telephone to kidnap and murder myself and my family members. I used to live in Anand Parbat around the year 1990. It is wrong to suggest that complainant, his father Suraj Bhan Jain never entered my house on 27.10.2004 and forcibly took the cheques. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely and I have to give the cheque amount to the complainant. It is wrong to suggest that I did not give the cheques amount even after receipt of legal demand notice Exh.CW1/10.
RO & AC
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/08.02.2012
Suraj Bhan Jain Vs. Dinesh Chand Gupta
C.C.No.4969/10
08.02.2012
Statement of Accused, Dinesh Chand Gupta (recalled for cross-examination). On S.A. That I and the complainant were engaged in the same trade and had business rivalry with each other. There were cut throat competition between them. Therefore, the complainant and his namely, Atul Jain used to pick up quarrels with me on petty matters and extended threats personally as well as on telephonically to kidnap and murder of me and my family members. The matter was reported to the police but police instead of taking action used to issue warning against the complainant and his son Atul Jain but the attitude and behaviour of the complainant and his son Atul Jain never changed despite police warning. I never took any friendly loan as alleged of Rs.58,000/- from the complainant. I do not have any friendly relation with the complainant. I was not in need of the alleged amount in the month of July 2004. There was no such transaction took place between me and complainant. Further I had neither issued nor gave any cheque to the complainant towards the repayment of alleged amount. The cheque in question came into the possession of the complainant as on 27.10.2004, the complainant and his son Atul Jain alongwith 05-06 gunda elements forcibly entered in my property and given beating to me and complainant and his son Atul Jain with the help of Gunda elements at the point of knife procured eight cheques bearing No.541571, No.541574 to 541480 all drawn on State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, New Rohtak Road, Delhi of different amounts and further extorted me and obtained blank signed papers, stamp papers including my aforesaid cheques. In the meantime, one Sri Kishan and other people of the locality were gathered present there and the above said persons succeeded to run away from the spot. Thereafter, I went to the local police with Sri Kishan but the police did not take any action. In the month of December-2004, I sent a reply of the legal demand notice of the counsel Sh. B.N. Gupta which was sent to me on 25.11.2004 by him which is Exh.DW1/A through my counsel Sh. S.K. Yadav which has been duly served to the counsel of the complainant. The registered postal envelope is Exh.DW1/B. Thereafter, I filed the complaint case U/s 323/452/342/384/506 IPC before the concerned of court of Anand Parbat and the complainant and his father have been summoned and are facing trial. The copy of the complaint to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 10.12.2004 is Exh.DW1/C. Thus, the aforesaid cheques including the cheques No.541577, 541578, 541579 and 541580 are misused by the complainant in the present case. I further say that on 26.08.2004, my banker had issued the cheque book consisting of aforesaid cheque numbers. The said photocopy of the said Acknowledgment issued by State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur which has been issued by the said banker on 26.08.2004 is Exh.DW1/D (OSR). The cheques in question are misused by the complainant and his father and I am not liable for any damages or claims by the complainant. The complainant has filed the false case against me.
Cross-examination deferred at request of the complainant.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/08.02.2012 M/s SLS Enterprises Vs. M/s GTC Enectricals (P) Ltd.
C.C.No.6465/1208.02.2012 Statement of Mr. Anil Sethi, AR of the complainant firm.
On S.A. I, the above named AR of the complainant firm do hereby tender my evidence by way of affidavit Exh.CW1/1 which bears my signatures at Point X and Point Y. I hereby close my Pre- summoning evidence.
RO & AC
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/08.02.2012
B.R. Sethi Vs. M/s Paul & Company & Anr.
C.C.No.6151/11
08.02.2012
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Bailable Warrant received back duly executed. Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/08.02.2012
At 11.40 a.m.
Present: Complainant in person.
Advocate Sh. Yogesh Saxena for the accused.
Ld. Advocate filed an application for exemption on behalf of the accused on the ground that accused has been advised a two days bed rest by the Doctor.
He has also attached a medical certificate dated 07.02.2012.
It appears that despite the service of summons, accused was not present on the last date whereupon bailable warrant was issued which has been received back duly executed. Despite that, accused chose not to appear in the court either in person or through counsel.
Ld. Advocate has not filed any Vakalatnama on behalf of the accused.
The medical certificate is dated 07.02.2012 i.e. only one day prior to the date of hearing.
No medicine has been prescribed in this medical certificate. Only a two days rest has been prescribed.
Let this Doctor be summoned. Medical certificate is showing a rest till 08.02.2012 i.e. today.
One more opportunity is given to the accused to make his appearance.
List on 15.02.2012 for appearance and further proceedings.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/08.02.2012 M/s SLS Enterprises Vs. M/s GTC Enectricals (P) Ltd.
C.C.No.6465/12
08.02.2012
Present: AR of the complainant firm with counsel.
After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation and jurisdiction, I am of the opinion that prima facie a case for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is made out against the accused person.
A summons be issued against the accused Haffiz Uddin Siddique for the next date of hearing. Complainant shall file necessary process fee.
Summons shall also be sent through the mode of speed post and authorized courier.
Complainant shall ensure the filing of sufficient number of copies of the complaint as provided in section-204(3) Cr.PC.
Complainant to file the Process fees within 10 days.
Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section-204(4) Cr.PC. empowering the court to dismiss the complaint in case steps as directed above are not taken within a reasonable time.
Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial procedure on 01.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/08.02.2012 M/s Bansal Credits Ltd. Vs. Kailash Saini C.C.No.5261/10 08.02.2012 Statement of Mr. Rajendra Prasad Tripathi, AR of the complainant company. On S.A. I, the above named AR of the complainant company do hereby state that the matter has been amicably settled with the accused in full and final settlement in the present complaint case. The complainant company has no further grievance against the accused and nothing remains due towards the accused and I have the instructions from the complainant company to withdraw the matter as settled.
Therefore, the matter may be allowed to be treated as compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/08.02.2012 M/s Bansal Credits Ltd. Vs. Kailash Saini C.C.No.5261/10 08.02.2012 Present: Mr. Rajendra Prasad Tripathi, AR of the complainant company.
The matter is settled.
Separate statement of AR of the complainant company recorded in this respect.
Let the matter be put up in Lok Adalat to be held on 11.02.2012 for final disposal.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/08.02.2012 M/s Mahabir Prasad Jain (HUF) & Anr. Vs. Shri Ahimsa Mines & Minerals & Anr.
C.C.No.649/1008.02.2012 Statement of CW1 Mr. Mahabir Prasad (recalled for further cross-examination).
On S.A. XXXXX by Ms. Rashmi Singhla, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
It is correct that Narender Kumar Jain, Ms. Sandhya Devi Jain and myself used to reside as a Joint Family at Nalbari, Guwahati and Jaipur and reside in the same house. It is also correct that I can identify the handwriting and signatures of Narender Kumar Jain and Sandhya Devi Jain. It is correct that I have not produced any evidence showing that I am a Karta of firm M/s Mahabir Prasad Jain (HUF). It is wrong to suggest that I have produced the same as I am not a Karta of firm M/s Mahabir Prasad Jain (HUF). It is wrong to suggest that I had given the signed blank cheques of HUF firm to Nemi Chand Jain through Narender Kumar Jain. It is wrong to suggest that the entire cheques shoiwn in the Balance Sheet were filed by Nemi Chand Jain. I had given the money to Nemi Chand Jain against interest. I have not produced any document to prove that whether I was in Jaipuir or not on 02.11.2001, 26.12.2001 and on 05.01.2002. I do not remember whether I have placed any document or not to show that I have sold my shop at Jaipur. I had placed the Balance Confirmation Document which is Exh.CW1/4 with the Income Tax Department in my Income Tax Return of that year. It is wrong to suggest that I have not arranged the cash amount deposited in my account which is Exh.CW1/4. I do not remember how I have arranged and deposited the amount in my account at Jaipur. I do not remember whether I used to keep cash amount with me at Jaipur. It is wrong to suggest that I do not keep the cash amount at Jaipur due to that reason I do not remember. I do not remember whether I used to bring cash money from Guwahati or not. (Vol. I do not remember anything even done on a previous day now a days). It is correct that I have not placed any contract agreement between my firm and M/s First Flight Couriers regarding sending of documents. I do not remember how much amount I have received in cash or through cheque after selling my shop at Jaipur for Rs.8 lacs. It is wrong to suggest that the sale document of Jaipur shop is not of Rs.8 lacs. It is correct that M/s Mahabir Prasad Jain (HUF) had purchased the shares from Nemi Chand Jain as well as from the market of M/s Ahimsa Mines and Minerals Ltd. It is correct that during the year 2003, Narender Kumar Jain and Ms. Sandhya Devi Jain used to reside at Jaipur at D-50, Jyoti Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur most of the time. Again said, I do not remember the year. It is correct that I have no other evidentiary document to show that Nemi Chand Jain owes me certain money except the cheque in dispute. I do not remember whether Narender Kumar Jain was personally trying to get Nemi Chand Jain arrested. It is correct that my name was not there in the list of witnesses in this complaint. It is also correct whatever documents I was having at the time of filing the complaint, I placed it alongwith the complaint. It is wrong to suggest that myself and my family members got filed false and fabricated cases against Nemi Chand Jain to put pressure on Nemi Chand Jain to transfer the management to Narender Kumar Jain of M/s Ahimsa Mines and Minerals Ltd.
Cross-examination deferred for after lunch.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/08.02.2012
M/s Mahabir Prasad Jain (HUF) & Anr. Vs. Shri Ahimsa Mines & Minerals & Anr.
C.C.No.649/10
08.02.2012
Statement of CW1 Mr. Mahabir Prasad Jain (recalled for further cross-examination after lunch).
On S.A. XXXXX by Ms. Rashmi Singhla, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
It is wrong to suggest that my relationship with my son and daughter was never strained due to the indulgence of various cases by my son. I have signed the balance sheet of Rara Brothers for 31.03.2009 which is Exh.CW1/DX1. I cannot tell about the cases filed by the banker under the Scrutinization Act as my son used to look after all those cases. To resolve the disputes between Narender Kumar Jain and Nemi Chand Jain, I cannot tell a Panch was appointed or not. In Swikarokti, there is no personal things have been written which I can only know are concocted facts. I had received a legal demand notice from Deepak Kumar Jain and, thereafter, I filed a suit for defamation against the said Deepak Kumar Jain. I had knowledge about the Swikarokti. I never controverted the Swikarokti by any publication or otherwise. The Swikarokti is Mark-X1. It is correct that to sought out the len den of Narender Kumar Jain, Lala Oswal and Deep Chand Rai were appointed as Mediators but the dispute was not resolved. The FAX transmission containing the FAX number as 03612522069 is of Narender Kumar Jain's office at Guwahati. I do not know whether the copies of FAX Mark-X2 and Mark-X3 were sent from Narender Kumar Jain's office to Rara Brothers. This fact can be ascertained from Narender Kumar Jain. After going through the copies of FAX, witness stated that signature on FAX transmission Mark-X4 pertains to Parshant i.e. his servant. It is wrong to suggest that Parshant had sent these FAX on my instructions or otherwise. (Vol. I do not look after the work of Rara Brothers but only Narender Kumar Jain was looking after the work). I know that liabilities of the company are paid by the company by itself and not by the individual and vise versa. It is wrong to suggest that transactions between me and Nemi Chand Jain were paper transactions or Nemi Chand Jain had deposited the entire money in my account. It is correct that Narender Kumar Jain had paid cash amount to the M/s Ahimsa Mines and Minerals Ltd. for investment. However, as I said earlier, all the transactions were actual and not paper transactions. It is wrong to suggest that I had any knowledge about the date of withdrawal of amount by the accused from his bank. It is wrong to suggest that I have filed a false complaint against the accused. It is also wrong to suggest that accused was not having any liability towards the complainant firm. It is further wrong to suggest that the instant cheque was available with my son being the Director of the company or otherwise. It is also wrong to suggest that I have misused any cheque. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/08.02.2012
Suraj Bhan Jain Vs. Dinesh Chand Gupta
C.C.No.4969/10
08.02.2012
Present: Complainant in person.
Accused with counsel.
These are two connected matters.
Accused examined in chief.
Cross-examination deferred at request of complainant.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/08.02.2012
At 02.10 p.m.
Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
These are two connected matters.
Accused was examined in chief in the morning and has been cross-examined after lunch session. Discharged.
Put up for remaining defence evidence.
Accused to take all necessary steps.
List on 07.04.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/08.02.2012
Atul Jain Vs. Dinesh Chand Gupta
C.C.No.4968/10
08.02.2012
Present: Complainant in person.
Accused with counsel.
These are two connected matters.
Accused examined in chief.
Cross-examination deferred at request of complainant.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/08.02.2012
At 02.10 p.m.
Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
These are two connected matters.
Accused was examined in chief in the morning and has been cross-examined after lunch session. Discharged.
Put up for remaining defence evidence.
Accused to take all necessary steps.
List on 07.04.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/08.02.2012 M/s Mahabir Prasad Jain (HUF) & Anr. Vs. Shri Ahimsa Mines & Minerals & Anr.
C.C.No.649/10
08.02.2012
Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Counsel for the accused.
Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that due to wrong noting of the date, accused could not appear today.
Ld. Counsel for the accused, however, is willing to cross-examine the AR of the complainant.
AR of the complainant further cross-examined. Discharged.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant wants to examine a person from the concerned Courier Service. Complainant to take necessary steps.
List on 16.03.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/08.02.2012