Delhi District Court
M/S Din Sons Overseas vs . M/S Jwala Niryat & Ors. on 14 February, 2013
M/s Din Sons Overseas Vs. M/s Jwala Niryat & Ors.
CC No.6835/12
14.02.2013
Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
Counsel for accused No.2.
Ld. Counsel for accused No.2 submits that he has no instructions from the accused,
therefore, he wants to withdraw his Vakalatnama.
As prayed, he is discharged from the case subject to filing of a written submission in this
behalf.
Summons against other accused persons not received back. Be awaited.
Fresh summons be issued. A Notice to accused No.2 be also issued.
It appears that a cost was imposed on accused No.2 on the last date. Since the same has
not been deposited till date, let a Warrant of Attachment by virtue of Section-431 r/w Section-421
Cr.P.C. be issued against accused No.2 for recovery of the cost of Rs.2,000/-.
Be listed on 29.04.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
14.02.2013
Ashok Kumar Vs. Smt. Krishna
CC No.2738/10
14.02.2013
Present: None.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
14.02.2013
At 01.30 p.m.
Present: None.
Complaint dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
14.02.2013
Hem Chand Sukhani Vs. M/s Ram Chandra Krishan Chandra Fantasy & Ors.
CC No.5437/11
14.02.2013
Present: None.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
14.02.2013
At 12.59 p.m.
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused with proxy counsel.
The the matter settled between the parties. Statement of the Complainant recorded in this
respect. The matter stands compounded U/s 147 NI Act. Accused is acquitted of the charges. Bail
Bond and Surety, if any, be discharged. File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
14.02.2013
Jagjit Publishing Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Aapka Faisla Parkashan Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
CC No.6514/12
14.02.2013
Present: AR of the Complainant with counsel.
Accused absent.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
14.02.2013
At 01.00 p.m.
Present: AR of the Complainant with counsel.
Accused with proxy counsel.
AR of the Complainant submits that he has received the cost from the accused.
Parties submit that payment has been completed and matter is settled. Statement of AR of
the Complainant recorded. File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
14.02.2013
M/s Eastern Comnets Ltd. Vs. M/s Balaji Packers
CC No.6676/12, 6677/12, 6678/12 & 6679/12
14.02.2013
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Counsel for the accused.
These are four connected matters.
Ld. counsel for the accused has filed his Vakalatnama in two cases and has also filed
exemption application supported with a medical paper. He further submits that accused will
produce on the next date the medical papers required on earlier occasion.
Ld. counsel for the complainant submits that they have supplied the relevant copies of
complainant documents to the earlier counsel for the accused.
Ld. counsel for the accused submits that earlier counsel has not informed anything to the
accused.
Let the matter be adjourned for appearance and for further proceedings on 23.02.2013 as
prayed by both the sides.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
14.02.2013
Gurpreet Singh Vs. Bunty Sonkar
CC No.1054/10
14.02.2013
Present: None.
It seems that when Process Server was not traceable, fresh Process was directed against
the accused vide order dated 01.11.2012. It, however, appears that instead of issuance of process
against the accused, the office issued a Notice to HC Nem Das. Now the Nem Das is present
today. This is not appropriate on the part of the office as it is clearly a non compliance of the
orders. It would be appropriate if the office complied with the orders by issuing process against
the accused as required. As such Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. be issued against the accused. In view of
earlier reports, it appears that there is every possibility of arrest of the accused, therefore, NBW
be also issued against the accused which shall be executed by the SHO concerned who shall also
make a detailed report in this respect. A Notice be also issued to the Complainant.
List on 29.05.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
14.02.2013
Dhani Ram Vs. Charanjit Singh
CC No.6646/12
14.02.2013
Statement of Mr. Dhani Ram, Complainant.
On S.A.
I, the above named Complainant do hereby state that the matter has been amicably settled
with the accused in full and final settlement in the present complaint case. Accused has given the
entire settled amount of Rs.18,000/- to me in the present complaint case. I have no further
grievance against the accused as nothing remains due towards the accused in the present
complaint case. 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
14.02.2013
Jagjit Publishing Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Aapka Faisla Parkashan Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
CC No.6514/12
14.02.2013
Statement of Mr. Mohinder Pal Singh Chadha, AR of the Complainant.
On S.A.
I, the above named AR of the Complainant do hereby state on behalf of the Complainant
that the matter has been amicably settled with the accused in Mediation Cell in full and final
settlement in the present complaint case. Accused has given the entire settled amount of Rs.16
lacs to the Complainant as per Mediation agreement. Today accused has given me Rs.6 lacs by
way of Demand Draft. Complainant has no further grievance against the accused as nothing
remains due towards the accused in the present complaint case. 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
14.02.2013
Harsh Gupta Vs. Nidhi
CC No.6773/12
14.02.2013
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Notice issued to the Respondent received back showing a deliberate attempt on the part of
the respondent to avoid the notice. In such circumstances, it can be believed that the Respondent does not want to say anything against the application of complainant for condonation of delay. As such be listed for the arguments on application and disposal.
List on 22.03.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 Dhani Ram Vs. Charanjit Singh CC No.6646/12 14.02.2013 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused in person.
The matter settled between the parties. Separate statement of Complainant recorded in this respect. The matter stands compounded U/s 147 NI Act. Accused is acquitted of the charges. Bail Bond and Surety Bond, if any, be discharged. File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 M/s KLI Advertising Vs. Pawan CC No.2974/10 14.02.2013 Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
He seeks some to file fresh address of the accused.
Last opportunity to comply with last order.
List on 23.05.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 M/s Souvenir Publishers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Suresh CC No.6135/11 14.02.2013 Present: AR of the Complainant.
He is seeking an adjournment for want of counsel.
Last opportunity for the complainant for 09.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 M/s Macmillan Publishers & India Ltd. Vs. JBC Publishers & Distributors CC No.6458/12 14.02.2013 Present: None.
Even witnesses are not present despite service.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 At this stage, Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
Accused with counsel.
Witness from bank is present but has not brought the relevant record as per submission of the ld. counsel.
He is directed to bring the relevant record and that too in accordance with the Bankers Books Evidence Act for 11.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 Rakesh Kohli Vs. Blue Label Scientifics Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
CC No.4518/10
14.02.2013
Present: None.
Last opportunity for the complainant to comply with the earlier orders for 31.05.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 Sanjeev Kapoor Vs. M/s Jai Ambey Collections & Ors.
CC No.2530/1014.02.2013 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused absent.
It appears that even Process U/s 83 Cr.P.C. has been unexecuted for 29.11.2012. It, however, appears that police officials have not verified in appropriate manner about any property of the accused. Let a fresh Process U/s 83 Cr.P.C. be issued against the accused.
Complainant submits that accused is now in India and is appearing in some other court also. Let a NBW be also issued against the accused. Complainant shall assist the police official.
Ahlmad shall also make the report as required vide order dated 03.12.2012.
List on 30.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 M/s Saraswati House (P) Ltd. Vs. Umesh Arora CC No.5018/10 14.02.2013 Present: None.
Notice issued to the Complainant unserved.
Fresh Notice be issued for 22.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 M/s Sharma Dairy Vs. Harandar Singh CC No.1729/10 14.02.2013 Present: Proxy counsel for the Complainant.
Last opportunity for the complainant to comply with orders for 03.06.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 M/s Anand Enterprises Vs. Masroor Ali CC No.2503/10 14.02.2013 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused in person.
Till date no steps have been taken by the accused in defence despite the fact that vide order dated 18.10.2012 last opportunity was given. The opportunity to lead defence evidence closed.
In terms of Step-IV of Guidelines laid down in Rajesh Aggaarwal Vs. State & Anr. 171 (2010) DLT-51, let the file be listed for final arguments on 02.03.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 M/s Mahavir Electricals&Power Systems Controls Vs. M/sSnam Electricals Pvt.Ltd.&Ors CC No.4102/10, 4103/10 & 4104/10 14.02.2013 Present: None for the Complainant.
Both the accused with proxy counsel.
These are three connected matters.
Ram Karan from VAT office is present. He is discharged unexamined and is bound down for the next date.
Summons issued to the Ram Kishor Jain unserved with a report no such person. Accused may on his own produce the said Ram Kishor Jain.
Witness from Hon'ble High Court of Delhi is not present despite service. However, ld. proxy counsel for the accused submits that they will bring certified copies of relevant record and tender it in evidence.
A Notice be also issued to the Complainant.
List on 06.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 At this stage, Mr. Sampat Raj from the Complainant is present.
Witness Anil Kumar Ray, LDC from Hon'ble High Court of Delhi also appeared. Discharged unexamined.
List on date fixed i.e. 06.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 Ashok Kumar Taparia Vs. Girdhari Lal CC No.1173/10 14.02.2013 Present: Parties in person.
They seek passover for want of ld. counsels.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 At 12.35 p.m. Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused in person.
Accused submits that his counsel is busy in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
One opportunity to the accused subject to a cost of Rs.2,000/- to be paid to the Complainant.
List on 28.02.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 M/s DLF Cement Ltd. Vs. M/s Aditya Construction Co. & Anr.
CC No.3559/1014.02.2013 Present: AR of the Complainant with counsel.
SHO, PS : Pahar Ganj is also present. SHO submits that on earlier occasion Process was received late in the police station and the same was to be executed in Punjab and, therefore, mandatory gap of 30 days could not be provided. He, however, submit that he will take care of all such situations in future and will issue necessary instructions to all his subordinates.
Let an opportunity be granted to the police station to do the needful. The concerned police station, if receives Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. for short duration, they may return the same to the office whereupon the responsible officials shall file explanation whenever required.
It appears that there is every possibility of arrest of accused from the Punjab address. As such, let NBW be issued against the accused at Punjab address for 29.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 Kamal Singh Vs. Chandan Singh CC No.6308/A/11 14.02.2013 Present: Complainant with proxy counsel.
Accused with counsel.
Ld. proxy counsel is seeking a passover for want of ld. main counsel.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 At this stage, Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused with counsel.
I have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant.
Ld. Counsel for the accused is, however, seeking an adjournment on the ground that he has filed a Revision Petition.
Ld. Counsel for the accused has prayed for a very short date.
List on 21.02.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 Lalit Maggo Vs. Sonu Oberoi CC No.843/10 14.02.2013 Present: Complainant with Proxy Counsel Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya.
Accused with counsel.
Ld. counsel for the accused has filed written submissions and supplied the copy of the same to the Complainant.
Ld. proxy counsel submits that she will argue the matter on behalf of the Complainant.
I have heard both the sides.
Put up for arguments on 25.02.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 Om Dutt Kaushik Vs. M/s Global Infocom Ltd. & Anr.
CC No.4665/10
14.02.2013
Present: Complainant in person.
Accused absent.
Addl. SHO, PS : Patel Nagar is present and submits that the Bailable Warrants in the year 2010 was executed by Sahibabad Police and even the addresses of Sureties are in Ghaziabad, U.P. and the Rajinder Nagar is also in Ghaziabad, U.P. Addl. SHO submits that given the time to execute the Processes against Sureties and accused even at the Ghaziabad address in consultation with Ghaziabad police. Let NBW and Warrant of Attachment against accused S.K. Jain be issued in terms of earlier orders alognwith a Notice to Surety Rakesh Kasana. SHO is discharged.
It has been brought to the notice that Surety Vipin Jain is an accused in some other case in which Production Warrant has been issued against him in this court. Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 At 12.45 p.m. Present: Complainant in person.
Accused absent.
Advocate Sh. Satender Sharma is present on behalf of Surety Vipin Jain and submits that Surety Vipin Jain has not been produced in the other matter.
Let this file be listed with other CC No.1305/10 for 18.02.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 Pramod Verma Vs. L.C. Jain CC No.1479/10 14.02.2013 Present: Proxy counsel for the Complainant.
Accused with counsel.
Ld. Proxy counsel for the Complainant submits that he does not want to advance any arguments and will rely upon the reply filed by them. I have heard the ld. counsel for the accused.
Put up for orders on 21.03.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 Mohinder Khurana & Anr. (accused) CC No.1178/10, 1194/10, 1195/10 & 1202/10, 14.02.2013 Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
Accused in person.
Ld. counsel for the OL.
These are four matters against the accused.
Ld. counsel for the Official Liquidator submits that Official Liquidator will represent the accused company and defend the case. It appears that Section-457 Companies Act has been amended but till date has not been notified. It seems that unamended Section-457(1) of Companies Act gives power to defend the company even in a criminal prosecution, however, after obtaining the sanction of company court. OL may do the needful as per law. Let the needful be done by the ld. counsel so that proceeding can continue against both the accused i.e. accused company by virtue of Section-138 NI Act and accused individual Director Mohinder Khurana by virtue of Section-141 NI Act.
List on 06.04.2013.
As prayed, let a copy of the order be given dasti to the ld. counsel for the OL.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 Subhash Chand Jain Vs. Gaurav Aggarwal CC No........./12 14.02.2013 Record of Plea and examination of Gaurav Aggarwal, aged about 33 years, S/o Sh. Mohan Lal Aggarwal, R/o H.No.1841, Street No.9, Rajgarh Colony, Delhi-110031, U/s 251, 263(g), 313 read with Section-281(6) Cr. P.C. Without oath I understand the accusation explained over to me. I do not want to plead guilty. I also understand all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against me. I know the complainant. The Cheque in question bearing No.901893 dated 10.02.2012 is drawn on my bank account and bears my signature. Other columns of the Cheque in question have also been filed in by me and the same has been given to the Complainant by me against purchase of goods from the Complainant. Other two cheques in question bearing No.881363 dated 15.02.2012 and 881364 only bear my signatures and other columns of these two cheques have not been filled in by me. I have given the said two cheques in question to the complainant as security against the business transaction about five years ago. I have not received any legal demand notice from the complainant. However, names and addresses appearing on legal demand notice and postal articles are correct and are mine. Cheque returning memo is not disputed. I have sufficient defence to make. I want to lead Defence Evidence. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 Subhash Chand Jain Vs. Gaurav Aggarwal CC No.6712/A/12 14.02.2013 Record of Plea and examination of Gaurav Aggarwal, aged about 33 years, S/o Sh. Mohan Lal Aggarwal, R/o H.No.1841, Street No.9, Rajgarh Colony, Delhi-110031, U/s 251, 263(g), 313 read with Section-281(6) Cr. P.C. Without oath I understand the accusation explained over to me. I do not want to plead guilty. I also understand all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against me. I know the complainant. The Cheques in question are drawn on my bank account and bear my signatures. Other columns of the Cheque in question have not been filed in by me and the same have been given to the Complainant by me against the business transaction about five years ago. I have not received any legal demand notice from the complainant. However, names and addresses appearing on legal demand notice and postal articles are correct and are mine. Cheque returning memos are not disputed. I have sufficient defence to make. I want to lead Defence Evidence. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 Sandeep Kumar & Ors. (accused).
CC No.1305/10 & 1306/1014.02.2013 Present: Amol Kumar Jana with counsel.
Accused absent.
Surety Anita Jain is present.
These are two matters against the accused.
NBW against accused Sandeep Jain and Kavita Jain unexecuted.
In the facts and circumstances appearing from the record, let a Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. be issued against the accused Sandeep Jain and Kavita Jain at all the addresses separately for 30.04.2013.
So far as issuance of Production Warrant against accused Vipin Jain is concerned, the office has made a report that inadvertently they could not issue the Production Warrant. I note that similar reports are being made by the office with impunity in several cases. This is not appropriate. Let an explanation be called from the Ahlmad as to why report be not sent to the Ld. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi that Ahlmad, Asstt. Ahlmads posted in the office attached to this court are not properly functioning and giving such lame excuses in several case one after the other.
Let a Production Warrant be issued against accused Vipin Jain at the earliest and for production of accused Vipin Jain, let this file be listed on 18.02.2013. So far as Surety Anita Jain is concerned since she has not deposited the bond amount, the Attachment Warrant shall continue against her and the same shall be issued for 18.02.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 Hem Chand Sukhani Vs. M/s Ram Chandra Krishan Chandra Fantasy & Ors.
CC No.5437/1114.02.2013 Statement of Mr. Hem Chand Sukhani, Complainant. On S.A. I am the Complainant in the present case. I have already received Rs.66,000/- from the accused towards full and final settlement of the present case. I pray that matter may be treated as compounded.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 Vijay Kumar Vs. Hari Chand CC No.2569/10 14.02.2013 Statement of HC Kanwar Pal, No.326C, PS : Hauz Qazi, Delhi-110006. On S.A. I am the Process Server in this case and I had visited the address of the accused as mentioned in the process on 20.11.2012 to execute the Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. on the accused namely Hari Chand for 20.12.2012. I found the said address locked. On enquiry, one Mr. Pradeep Kumar neighbour of the accused told me that the accused has left the said address about 1 ½ year ago for unknown place. I affixed a copy of the Process on the gate of the given address and also made announcement in public about the process. I also affixed the copy of the Process on the Notice Board of the Court. This is my true and correct statement. My report is Mark-X having my signature at Point-A. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 Vijay Kumar Vs. Hari Chand CC No.2569/10 14.02.2013 Present: SPA of the Complainant.
Accused absent.
Counsel for the accused.
He has filed his Vakalatnama.
Process Server HC Kanwar Pal is present. His statement recorded in respect of execution of Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C.
Ld. counsel for the accused has filed an application cancellation of proceedings U/s 82 Cr.P.C. alongwith an exemption application. He has also filed a medical paper. He submits that accused has not received any notice from the court and, therefore, Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. could not have been issued against the accused. He has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Orissa High Court in 2005 Cri LJ 3365 to contend that there was no reason for the court to believe that accused was absconding. I have gone through the judgment and find that the same has no application to the present case. It seems that ld. counsel for the accused himself is not aware about the factual position of the present case. There has been deliberate attempt on the part of the accused in avoiding his appearance. Even on two earlier occasions, accused was present and an opportunity was given to the accused to participate in the proceedings subject to a cost. Despite that accused failed to appear in the court. Earlier bonds executed before the police officials were extended vide order dated 23.12.2011. On 19.09.2012, NBW was issued which was unexecuted showing a deliberate attempt on the part of the accused whereas address mentioned in the NBW was same as provided by the accused in the Bail Bond executed by him before the police official. It was clear that accused was deliberately avoiding his appearance. Only thereafter Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. was issued. In such circumstances, the submission of ld. counsel for the accused that accused was not served in the present case is not only fallacious but is misleading. Very interestingly the Surety Jai Mala is the wife of the accused. Even this Surety is unserved despite repeated efforts. However, since ld. counsel is present and raising a medical ground of the accused, one opportunity is given to the accused for appearance subject to depositing of earlier cost imposed vide order dated 11.05.2012 alongwith a further cost of Rs.3,000/-.
To be listed on 14.03.2013 for appearance of accused.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 Sanjeev Kumar Gulati Vs. Mukesh Bhatia CC No.5983/11 & 5984/11 14.02.2013 Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
These are two connected matters.
Accused has been seeking passover since morning for want of counsel.
I have heard the ld. counsel for the accused in part.
Adjourned to 20.02.2013 for further arguments.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 Brij Bhushan Attri Vs. Mrs. Rajlakshmi Shekar CC No.7177/13 14.02.2013 Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
At request, adjourned to 20.02.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 M/s Jay & Co. India P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Vindair Engineers P. Ltd. & Ors.
CC No.6732/1214.02.2013 Present: AR of the Complainant with Counsel.
This court has passed a detailed order on 16.05.2012 in a case titled as Harish Chand Vs. Saira Khatoon, CC No.6687/12 whereby it was observed that there is no necessity to tender the affidavit and that exhibits mentioned in the affidavit are to be marked, initialed and dated by the authority before whom affidavit has been sworn.
AR has filed his affidavit in evidence alongwith documents exhibited by the Oath Commissioner. The affidavit is marked as Mark-R for the purpose of identification.
I have gone through the record and after hearing the ld. counsel, I am satisfied that a case U/s 138 r/w Section-141 NI Act has been made out against the accused. Let the accused No.1, 2 and 3 be summoned through all available modes for 04.06.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 Ms. Mandakini Singh Witt Vs. ARN Infrastructures India Ltd. & Ors.
CC No.7201/1314.02.2013 Present: AR of the Complainant with Counsel.
This court has passed a detailed order on 16.05.2012 in a case titled as Harish Chand Vs. Saira Khatoon, CC No.6687/12 whereby it was observed that there is no necessity to tender the affidavit and that exhibits mentioned in the affidavit are to be marked, initialed and dated by the authority before whom affidavit has been sworn.
AR has filed his affidavit in evidence alongwith documents exhibited by the Oath Commissioner. The affidavit is marked as Mark-R for the purpose of identification.
I have gone through the record and after hearing the ld. counsel, I am satisfied that a case U/s 138 r/w Section-141 NI Act has been made out against the accused. Let the accused No.1, 2 and 3 be summoned through all available modes for 04.06.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 Subhash Chand Jain Vs. Gaurav Aggarwal CC No.6712/A/12 & ........../12 14.02.2013 Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
These are two connected matters.
Accusation explained over to the accused. His Plea and Examination recorded in this respect.
An application U/s 145(2) NI Act has been filed by the accused.
Both the ld. counsels have been heard.
In the facts and circumstances, application is allowed.
Accused may cross-examine the Complainant.
List on 22.03.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 M/s Ekta Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Rakesh Bhudev CC No.909/10 14.02.2013 Present: AR of the Complainant.
Ahlmad to report about compliance of previous order.
Previous order be complied with for 03.06.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 Camozzi India P. Ltd. Vs. Zenith Pneumatics CC No.5526/11 14.02.2013 Present: None.
Ahlmad to report about compliance of last order.
Last opportunity for the Complainant.
Previous order be complied with for 03.06.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 Manish Kumar Ravi Vs. The Managing Director (Jitender Choudhary) & Anr.
CC No.5376/11
14.02.2013
Present: Complainant in person.
Accused absent.
NBW received back unexecuted.
Let Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. be issued against the accused for 03.06.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 Charan Singh Vs. Amit Kumar CC No.3721/10 14.02.2013 Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
Process be awaited.
Fresh Process in terms of earlier order be issued for 01.06.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 M/s Japmeet Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Panna Lal Raj Kumar CC No.5528/11 14.02.2013 Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
Accused absent.
Process Server HC Ashok Kumar is reported to be on leave.
He be called again for 15.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 M/s Empire Home Appliances Ltd. (Complainant).
CC No.2002/10, 2003/10, 2006/10 & 2007/10 14.02.2013 Present: None.
These are four matters of the Complainant.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013 At this stage, Present: Employee of the Complainant with Counsel.
Ld. Counsel submits that Complainant has deposited the cost of Rs.1,000/- in each case.
AR stands substituted.
At request of ld. counsel for the Complainant, adjourned for pre-summoning evidence on 20.03.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 14.02.2013