M/S Jaypreet Kaur Sawhney And Co & Ors vs Mr Padam Chand Agarwal & Ors on 7 October, 2022

plaintiff? Give details Such a question is irrelevant in all the probabilities.

xxi. Whether M/s. Bharat Not relevant for the The said question is Exports Overseas of purpose of irrelevant because which plaintiff no. 2 & 3 adjudication of the present suit is a are the partners and also present case. defamation suit and plaintiff no. 2 were not the said question convicted and sentenced would not establish to undergo imprisonment anything. Such a for three months for question is being put offence U/S 138 NI Act to draw „Sadistic and whether after Pleasure‟ by the also not directed, U/S and is vexatious and 357 (3) Cr.P.C. to pay scandalous. Further compensation of Rs. 3 such a question is Lacs to the complainant not related to the vide Order dated 21-09- issues framed for the 2018 passed by Hon‟ble present matter.

Dr. Renu Solkhe, JMIC, Gurugram in criminal complaint filed by M/s Kanchan International in 029661-2016. CIS No. 11815/2016?

xxii. Whether Plaintiff No. 3 Not relevant for the The said question is was not convicted and purpose of irrelevant because sentenced to adjudication of the present suit is a imprisonment for a present case. defamation suit and period of two months the said question and also ordered to pay would not establish Rs. 3,40,000/- as anything. Such a compensation to question is being put complainant M/s. Parma to draw „Sadistic Enterprises who filed Pleasure‟ by the case no. CNR NO HRGA and is vexatious and 03025326-2016, CIS No. scandalous. Further 10585/2016 for such a question is committing offence U/s not related to the 138 N.I. Act? issues framed for the Whether the said present matter. In complaint was not filed any event the said on bouncing of cheques matter is already no. 584321 dated 30-04- settled.

2016 of Rs. 2,61.250/?

xxiii. Whether M/s Vakons Case Withdrawn. This question has Embroidery Pvt. Ltd. been answered.

have not filed two
criminal complaints
against M/s. Bharat
Exports Overseas of
which plaintiff no, 2 & 3
are the partners and also
against plaintiff no. 2 &
3 for offence U/S 138
N.I. Act for bouncing of
5 cheques bearing no.
000190 for Rs. 1 Lac,
cheque no. 000191 for
Rs. 1,06,820/-, cheque
no. 000188 for Rs.
63,037/-, cheque no.
000187 for Rs. 73,500/-,
cheque no. 000186 for
Rs. 73,500/respectively
in Gurgaon Courts?
xxiv. Whether complainants Not relevant for the The said question is
namely M/s. Religare purpose of irrelevant because
Finvest Ltd., and M/s. adjudication of the present suit is a
Neo Growth Credit have present case. defamation suit and
not filed in Dwarka, N. the said question
Delhi Courts, criminal would not establish
complaints U/S. 138 N.I. anything.
Act for offences of Such a question is
bouncing of being put to draw
chequesagainst Plaintiff „Sadistic Pleasure‟

no. 2 bearing Reg. No. by the Defendant
5006359/2016, CNR No. No. 1 to 3 and is
DLSW 020152402016 vexatious and
and Reg. No. scandalous. Further
22283/2017 and CNR such a question is
No. DLSW respectively. not related to the
issues framed for the
present matter.
xxv. Whether Sh. Baljeet Not relevant for the The said question is
Singh Guglani and M/s. purpose of irrelevant because
Capital First Ltd. have adjudication of the the present suit is a
not filed criminal present case. defamation suit and
complaint U/S 138 the said question
N.I.Act against plaintiff would not establish
No. 1 in Tis Hazari anything.
Courts, Delhi, in case Such a question is
bearing 9592/2017, CNR being put to draw
No. DLCT020173352017 „Sadistic Pleasure‟
and Registration No. by the Defendant
4643/2017 and CNR No. No. 1 to 3 and is
DLCT020072072017 vexatious and
respectively. scandalous. Further
such a question is
not related to the
issues framed for the
present matter.
xxvi. Whether M/s Indusind Not relevant for the The said question is
Bank has not filed purpose of irrelevant because
criminal complaint for adjudication of the the present suit is a
offences U/s 138 N.I. Act present case. defamation suit and
in Saket, N. Delhi Courts the said question
against plaintiff no. 2 would not establish
having Reg. NO. anything.
892/2017 & CNR No. Such a question is
DLSE 0200120152017 being put to draw
„Sadistic Pleasure‟
by the Defendant
No. 1 to 3 and is
vexatious and
scandalous. Further
such a question is
not related to the
issues framed for the
present matter.
xxvii. Whether M/s. Bajaj Not relevant for the The said question is

Finance Co. Ltd. have purpose of irrelevant because
not file d criminal adjudication of the the present suit is a
complaint for offences of present case. defamation suit and
bouncing of cheques U/S the said question
138 N.I. Act. In the would not establish
Court of Metropolitan anything.
Magistrate, South West, Such a question is
Dwarka, New Delhi being put to draw
having Regd. No. „Sadistic Pleasure‟
7702/2017, CNR No. by the Defendant
DLSWO20102722017, No. 1 to 3 and is
Regd. No. 4456/2017, vexatious and
CNR No. DLSW scandalous. Further
02006359-2017 & Regd. such a question is
No. 21839/2017, CNR not related to the
No. DLSW 02030497- issues framed for the
2017 respectively of present matter.
bouncing of three
cheques against plaintiff
no. 1.
xxviii. Whether non-bailable Not applicable for This question has
arrest warrant were not Plaintiff No. 1 and been answered.

issued on 09-06-2016 3. For Plaintiff No. against Plaintiff No. 2 by 2, it is a matter of Court of Hon‟ble record.

Magistrate Ms. Nabeeba
Wali, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi in criminal
case no. 56714/2016 for
offence U/S. 138 N.I. Act
filed by M/s. Yashika
Leasing & Financial
Services Ltd. against
Plaintiff No. 2, for
bouncing of cheque of
Rs. Fifty lacs? Whether
said trail is still
continuing against
Plaintiff No. 2?
xxix. Whether M/s Kanchan Not relevant for the The said question is
Internatinal, Sh. Mukesh purpose of irrelevant because
Jain, M/s Navya Fabrics adjudication of the present suit is a
have filed cases for present case. defamation suit and
recover of various the said question
amounts against M/s. would not establish

Bharat Export Overseas anything.
in the Courts at Such a question is
Gururam, Delhi, being put to draw
Faridabad bearing case „Sadistic Pleasure‟
Regd. No. 23/2016. CNR by the Defendant
No. HRGRO2004082- No. 1 to 3 and is
2016, regd. No. vexatious and
618001/2016, CNR No. scandalous. Further
DLCT 01-005426-2015 such a question is
& regd. No. 2051/2016, not related to the
CNR No. HRFB issues framed for the
02002803-2016 present matter.
respectively.
xxx. Whether Amar Jee has The said case This question has
not filed case no. CS No. doesn‟t pertain to been answered.
258/16 against Bharat the present
Exports Corp. & Ors. Plaintiff.
which was pending as on
13 11-2017 in Hon‟ble
Court of Sh. Sunil
Choudhary, ADJ-03
(N/W) Rohini Courts,
Delhi. What is status of
the case?
xxxi. Whether M/s. Anora Not relevant for the The said question is
Fashions Pvt. Ltd. purpose of irrelevant because
Mumbai filed S.C. Suit adjudication of the present suit is a
No. 2287/2016 against present case. defamation suit and
Plaintiff No. 1, 2 & 3 in the said question
Bombay City Civil would not establish
Court, at Bombay for anything.
recover of Rs. 4,60,460/- Such a question is
plus interest etc.? Please being put to draw
state the status of said „Sadistic Pleasure‟
case. by the Defendant
No. 1 to 3 and is
vexatious and
scandalous. Further
such a question is
not related to the
issues framed for the
present matter.
xxxii. Has one Mr. Rajan No This question has
Singh filed Criminal been answered.
Complaint No. 1064 dt.

22-11-2016 against the
Plaintiffs No. 2 & 3 to
Ld. DCP (East) Gurgaon
for cheating the
complainant a sum of Rs.
Three Lacs?
xxxiii. Plaintiffs be directed to No such records This question has
produce documents are available with been answered.
submitted to them to the plaintiff.
Credit Rating Agency,
ICRA Ltd. during last 5
years

Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments