2. R-2 / Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. made an offer for settlement of the claim at Rs. 20,000/-. Mr. Manmohan Mittal / petitioner has accepted the offer.

DAR No. 874/2017              Manmohan Mittal versus Pankaj Madan & Anr.           Page 1 of 3

3. Statement of Mr. Manmohan Mittal / petitioner and Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate for R-2 / Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. recorded separately.

4. Settlement amount is just and reasonable.

5. Accordingly, an award in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent No. 2 / Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

6. The respondent No. 2 / Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. shall make payment of the award amount within 30 days from today and in case of default, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest on the award amount @ 9% per annum from the date of Award till realization.

... Accused no.1

2. Y. N. Kashyap (since deceased) (Proceedings against him abated vide orders dated 08.02.2016)  S/o Sh. Ganeshi Lal, R/o Flat No.804, Meditech Apartment, Sector­56, Gurgaon (Haryana) (Rented House) CC No. 11/16: RC No.071/2009/E0002/CBI/EOU-II/N Delhi Page 1 of 140 CBI Vs. R. K. Joshi etc. DL-0375 (Private Person) ... Accused no.2

3. Ranjan Kashyap S/o Late Sh. Y. N. Kashyap, R/o Flat No.804, Meditech Apartment, Sector­56, Gurgaon (Haryana) (Rented House) (Private Person) ... Accused no.3 Date of Institution                :    30.09.2009           Date of Conclusion of Arguments :    20.12.2017 Date of Judgment     :    20.12.2017 J U D G M E N T

2 Let me give a very brief backdrop of the case. CNR No. DLCT01-015983-2017 Page 1 of 11 3 Complainant Devki Devi (PW1) got married to Sh. Panna Lal.

After marriage, complainant Devki Devi started residing at H. No. 16/1167E, Khalsa Nagar, Bapa Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi. Such house was owned by her father-in-law Sh. Prabhu Dayal.

4 Sh. Panna Lal died in the year 1962 and since there used to be frequent quarrels between her and her brother-in-law Roop Ram (younger brother of her husband), she started residing separately in Mangol Puri. According to her, her father-in-law Sh. Prabhu Dayal was never desirous of executing any will with respect to said house of Bapa Nagar.

1.  (Introduction) -  In   brief,   respondent/complainant   Manoj Tripathi filed a complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 Crl. App. No. 03/17 Sanjay Kumar Sharma  Vs.  Manoj Tripathi Page 1 of 10 (in brief Act, 1881)  against  appellant/accused  Sanjay Kumar Sharma that   the   complainant   had   given   interest   free   friendly   loan   of   Rs. 5,00,000/­   by way of cheque no. 223608 dated 09.10.2012 drawn on HDFC Bank, since the complainant had to meet liability of payment of consideration of buying a house, otherwise he was to forfeit the earnest money.   The   cheque   was   encashed   by   the   appellant/accused   [duly shown in brief statement of bank (Ex.PW1/A)]. In the month of April, 2013 the complainant approached the appellant/accused to return his money and appellant/accused issued a  post­dated cheque no. 375354 (Ex.CW1/B in the trial court record)  dated 25.3.2014 of Rs. 5,00,000/­ drawn on Central Bank of India, Savita Vihar Branch, Delhi in favour of the complainant Manoj Tripathi, however on presentation the appellant's banker   returned   the   cheque     with   remarks   dated   03.6.2014   "contact drawer drawee bank and represent" (as per memo Ex.CW1/C in the trial court record). It was followed by request for return of amount and then legal notice dated 21.6.2014 (Ex.CW1/D), however, despite request and sending the legal notice under registered post (as per postal receipts Ex.CW1/E and Ex.CW1/F), which was received by the appellant as per tracking report (Ex.CW1/G and Ex.CW1/H), the appellant/accused failed to return the amount.

INFORMATION IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE (MCTAP) 1 Date of Accident 17.06.2015 2 Date of intimation of the accident by the Not provided by the IO Investigation Officer to the Claims Tribunal (Clasuse2) 3 Date of intimation of the accident by the Not mentioned Investigation Officer to the Insurance Company (Clause2) 4 Date of filing of the Report under section Not mentioned 173 Cr.PC before the Metropolitan Magistrate (Clause 10) 5 Date of filing of Detailed Accident 02.12.2015 Information Report(DAR) by the Investigation Officer before Claims Tribunal (Clause) 6 Date of service of DAR on the Insurance 01.12.2015 Company (clause11) 7 Date of service of DAR on the claimant(s) 01.12.2015 (Clause11) 8 Whether DAR was complete in all Yes respects? ( Clause11) 9 If not state deficiencies in the DAR ..... 10 Whether the police has verified the Yes documents filed with DAR? (clause4) 11 Whether there was any delay or deficiency No. on the part of the Investigation Officer? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted? 12 Date of appointment of the Designated Not mentioned New MACT Case No. 477222/16                                             Page 2/27 Officer by the Insurance Company 13 Name , address and contact number of the Not mentioned Designated Officer of the Insurance Company(Clause 19) 14 Whether the Designated officer of the Not mentioned insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?(Clause 21) 15 Whether the Insurance Company admitted Yes. Legal offer of Rs.

2. The respondent herein had filed an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act against the Arvind Kumar Gupta before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. An interim application under Section 23 of the D.V. Act was filed by the respondent and vide impugned order, said interim application was disposed off by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate. It is pertinent to mention here that before the learned Trial Court, name of respondent is Arvind Kumar Gupta but present appeal has been preferred by the said Arvind Kumar Gupta as PUNSAKG, President of United Nation of Shyawhdo Arvind Kumar Gupta. In short order dated 01.06.2016, learned Metropolitan Magistrate has also mentioned that an application filed by the respondent (appellant herein) and same is titled as Babita Gupta v. President of United Nation of Shyawhdo. Said application was also dismissed as not maintainable by the learned trial court observing/clarifying that the President of the United Nation Shyawhdo, in his official capacity is not a party in the present case.

A   Memorandum   of   understanding   dated   11.04.2012 was got executed between the plaintiff who is engaged in the   business   of   designing   and   marketing   service   of silverware and Mr. Sunil Handa, husband of the defendant, who was a freelance manufacturer of silverware at 1/9777, street no. 1C, 4th Floor, West Gorakh Park, Shahdara, Delhi­ 110032 for undertaking job work of silver artifacts for and on behalf of plaintiff at the office of the plaintiff at 1717, Gali Piao Wali, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. 

The plaintiff Bhawana Lihla Schroder, Proprietor of M/s B' Precious gave 10 KG of Silver to Mr. Sunil Handa for the preparation   of   silverwares   as   per   specifications   of   the plaintiff.   Sh. Sunil Handa agreed to complete the job to Suit no. 1416/16 Bhawna Lihla Schroder v. Neelam Handa Page no. 2 of 9 the full satisfaction and as per the specifications following timelines.   Sh.   Sunil   Handa   neither   completed   the   job assigned to him nor returned the aforesaid 10 Kgs of Silver handed over to him in good faith and trust to undertake the job work. 

Background

2. Consequent   to   liberalization   Policy   of   1991   of  Government of India promoting participation of private sector  into   service   sector,   NTP­1994   was   announced   by   the   Central  Government allowing private sector to run telecom services. For  running telecom services including Mobile Telephony, a licence  is   required   to   be   obtained  by   a   company   under   Section   4   of  Indian Telegraph Act. For the commission of telecom services in  India,   Department   of   Telecommunications   (DoT)   has   divided  the   entire   territory   of   India   into   22   telecom   circles/   service  areas.   The   need   and   timing   for   introduction   of   new   service  providers in a service area and terms and conditions of licence  to   a   service   provider   are   determined   as   per   the  recommendations   of   Telecom   Regulatory   Authority   of   India  (TRAI),   created   under   Telecom   Regulatory   Authority   of   India  Act 1997.

(a) The entry fee for the new pan India UAS licences in the  year   2008   was   kept   by   Department   of  Telecommunications   (DOT)   as   Rs.1658   Crore,   at   which  price   the   Cellular   Mobile   Telephone   Service   (CMTS)  licences were awarded by DOT after auction in the year  2001. These UAS licences, issued in 2008 were issued on  first­come   first­served   basis   without   any   competitive  bidding.

(b) A press release was issued by DOT on 24.9.2007, which  appeared   in   the   newspapers   on   25.9.2007,   mentioning  that   the   new   applications   for   UAS   licences   will   not   be  accepted  by the  DoT  after  1.10.2007  till further orders.  However   applications   received   up   to   25.09.2007   only  were   considered,   which   was   also   against   the  recommendations   of   Telecom   Regulatory   Authority   of  India (TRAI) that no cap should be placed on the number  of Access Service Providers in any service area.

2. During the period such investigation was in progress  an   SLP   (Civil)   Appeal   no.   24873/2010   was   filed   by   CPIL   &  Others before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in which Hon'ble  Supreme   Court   of   India   granted   leave   vide   an   order   dated  16.12.2010   and   decided   to   monitor   the   investigation   of   this  case.   Vide   the   aforesaid   order   dated   16.12.2010,   Hon'ble  Supreme Court of India also directed that:­ "The   CBI   shall   conduct   thorough   investigation  into various issues highlighted in the report of the  Central   Vigilance   Commission,   which   was  forwarded to the Director, CBI vide  letter dated  12.10.2009 and the report of the CAG, who have  prima   facie   found   serious   irregularities   in   the  grant   of   licenses   to   122   applicants,   majority   of  whom   are   said   to   be   ineligible,   the   blatant  violation of the terms and conditions of licenses  and   huge   loss   to   the   public   exchequer   running  into several thousand crore. The CBI should also  probe how licenses were granted to large number  of ineligible applicants and who was responsible  for the same and why the TRAI and the DoT did  not take action against those licensees who sold  their stakes/equities for many thousand crore and  also   against   those   who   failed   to   fulfill   roll­out  obligations and comply with other conditions of  license."

(NAVEEN KUMAR KASHYAP) SCJ-RC/N/W, ROHINI COURTS 21.12.2017vr

1. Vide   this   judgment,   I   shall   dispose   off   the   petition   filed   by  the  petitioner Sh. Satish for the grant of a succession certificate under section  372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 ( hereinafter referred to as ' the  Act') in respect to debt/securities etc., of Late Smt. Ram Pyari.

2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that  Smt. Ram Pyari, mother of the petitioner expired on 11.06.2004. It has  further   been   stated   that   deceased   was   having   a   bank   account   bearing  No.10312485487,  State  Bank  of   India,   Dakshinpuri,  New  Delhi.  It  has  been further stated that petitioner is the only the legal heir/ representative  of deceased. It is further stated that Sh. Suraj Bhan, father of petitioner  had predeceased in the month of September 1998. It was further stated on  behalf of the petitioner that there is no impediment under the provision of  the Act in the grant of succession certificate in his favour.

2. On the basis of material filed along with the chargesheet,  charge     u/s  61­1­14   Excise   Act  was  framed   against   the   accused     on  05.12.2007   to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 

3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined Sh Mangli  Prasad Retired ASI as PW­1 who registered the FIR   Ex PW ­1/A on the  basis of the rukka Ex PW­1/B .  PW­2 deposed that he was handed over  the sealed pulanda alongwith Form M 29  by the MHC(M) to deposit the  same with Excise Office and he deposited the same vide RC No.198/21/5.  PW­3   SI Kaptan Singh   is the IO of the present case who described the  details   of   the   investigation   carried   out   in   the   present   case.   PW­4   ASI  Rajender Singh  deposed that he was working as MHC(M) on 14.11.05  and on that day ASI Kaptan Singh deposited one plastic cane and one  sample bottle, both sealed with the seal of  KS alongwith Form M 29 with  it .  He deposited the same in malkhana and made entry in the register no  19   at   serial   no   2572.   Copy   of   the   same   was   exhibited   as   Ex   PW­4/A,  further, he also handed over the sample bottle to constable Baljeet Singh  on   directions   of   IO   for   depositing   the   same   in   excise   lab   and   after  depositing the same Ct. Baljeet handed over him the receipt and he made  the entry regarding the same in register no 19 as Ex PW­ 4/A at point A.  similarly,   on   01.12.05   Ct   Vijay   handed   him   the   result   of   excise   lab  FIR No.452/05 State Vs. Laxmi 2 regarding which he made the entry in register no 18  Ex PW­ 4/ B at point  A.

2. Prosecution examined PW1 Badri Lal who deposed that he had received information about death of his brother Ramji Lal. Clearly, PW1 is not a witness of incident. PW2 Shree Lal deposed that he had FIR No. 45/2011 State Vs. Mahender Sharma 1 of 4 received   the   information   from   Badri   Lal.   Again,   PW2   is   also   not   a witness   of   incident.   PW3   ASI   Rajender   was   the   duty   officer.   PW5 Mukesh   Kumar   is   electrical   inspector   who   deposed   that   leakage   of current was observed in table fan. PW6 Dr. Vinay deposed that cause of death   was   shock   due   to   electric   current.   PW7   Daya   Ram   electrical overseer supported the version of PW5. Ct. Banwari Lal deposing as PW8   stated   about   dead   body   preservation.   It   is   clear   that   all   these witnesses had not seen the incident. Some other witnesses are also there such as ASI Om Prakash, SI Om Prakash, Dr. Saha, ASI Mahesh. But even these witnesses have not seen the incident.

FIR No. 99/2011 State Vs. Ibrana 1 of 4 "On 31.03.2011, I was posted at PCR, East Zone, at R/14 as Incharge. On that day, I alongwith driver Ct. Yogender   and   Ct.   Sachin   at   about   7.15   p.m., received a call from PCR and reached at Bhawani Motors,   Ghazipur.     I  saw   that   one   lady  and  gents were quarreling with each other and I saw the glasses and chairs were found in broken condition.  I tried to get both of them separated but she had not left him. I again tried to separate them.  On this, she had left that person and after that she has caught hold of the collar of my uniform.  She scratched on my neck and face with her nails and had bitten me on my right hand.     During   the   scuffle,   Ct.   Sachin   and   Ct. Yogender,   who   were   present   inside   the   PCR,   also came   and  intervened  and  saved  me.     Thereafter,   I found some sort of rashness of my neck and when I checked,   I   found   that   my   gold   chain   alongwith locker was missing and the button of my shirt was found broken.  I tried to pacify the lady, who is the accused, present in the Court today and after making her sit in the PCR van brought to PS Gazipur.  In the PS, we came to know that the person with whom the accused   was   fighting   was   her   husband   Sunder Singh."

2. Sole eye witness i.e. Rajanwati has been produced as PW1 and   her   examination­in­chief   is   very   short   and   therefore   the   same   is reproduced here in under:

FIR No. 229/2012 State Vs. Prem Pal 1 of 3 "On 26.6.2012 at around 8.00­9.00 pm I was present at my above  mentioned  house.  Accused Prem  Pal (present in Court today, correctly identified by the witness) came and started quarreling with me and beat me with the dandas. Accused also thrashed me out   of   the   house   by   pushing   me   on   the   stairs. Thereafter,   accused   ran   from   the   spot   and   my neighbours took me to the hospital. Somebody had called   the   police.   I   had   sustained   severe   injuries. Police recorded my statement in the hospital which is Ex. PW1/A bearing my signature at point A and present case was registered. Due to the beatings my leg got broken which had to be operated later on. I had narrated the place to the police where accused had beaten me".

DAR No. 898/2017                   Ayush Rawat versus Ritu Raj Singh & Anr.             Page 1 of 3

2. R-2 / Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. made an offer for settlement of the claim at Rs. 81,000/-. Mr. Dinesh Rawat, father of the petitioner has accepted the offer.

3. Statement of Mr. Dinesh Rawat, father of the petitioner and Mr. S.P.S. Chauhan, Advocate for R-2 / Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. recorded separately.

4. Settlement amount is just and reasonable.

5. Accordingly, an award in the sum of Rs. 81,000/- is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent No. 2 / Bharti Axa General Insurance Co.

6. The respondent No. 2 / Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. shall make payment of the award amount within 30 days from today and in case of default, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest on the award amount @ 9% per annum from the date of Award till realization.

2. In the pre-summoning evidence, affidavit by way of evidence ExCW1/A was filed by the complainant. In his affidavit of evidence ExCW1/A, complainant reiterated all the averments made in his complaint and relied on documents Ex.CW1/1 to Ex.CW1/7, which are the original cheques in question, their return memos dated 09/04/2014 & 21/04/2014, legal notice dated 30/04/2014, postal delivery and proof of delivery ie acknowledgment card.

After closure of pre-summoning evidence, since sufficient material was found against the accused, summoning order u/s 204 Cr.P.C. was passed against the accused vide order dated 29.05.2014.

Dawinder Singh Vs. Shatrughan Singh CC No. 632/2017 Page 2 of 10 3

      Smt. Bindu Mehta & Ors Vs. State & Ors.    PC No. 42337/16     Page No. 2 of 27

2. Respondent No.2 Smt. Bina Bahl and respondent no. 3 Smt. Renuka Singh   are   married   daughters   of   testator   late   Sh.   Rameshwar   Nath Mehta.  

3. As per petition, late Sh. Rameshwar Nath Mehta executed two Wills during his lifetime. The first Will was executed by him on 26/02/2009 in   favour   of   his   son   Mr.   Vinod   Kumar   Mehta.   The   said   Will   was registered in the office of Sub Registrar-III, New Delhi. However, due to demise of beneficiary Vinod Kumar Mehta on 23/09/2010, late Sh. Rameshwar   Nath   Mehta   executed   second   Will   dated   07/10/2010   in favour of his daughter­in­law Smt. Bindu Mehta, who is widow of late Sh. Vinod Kumar Mehta, in respect of property no. 7A/24, W.E.A., Karol Bagh, New Delhi­05. The said Will was witnessed by attesting witnesses Sh. Shekhar Kundra and Sh. Dharmender Kumar and was also   registered   in   the   office   of   Sub   Registrar-III,   New   Delhi,   as Document No. 753, Volume 1517 on Pages 99-102 on 07/10/2010.       Smt. Bindu Mehta & Ors Vs. State & Ors.    PC No. 42337/16     Page No. 3 of 27

2. Respondent No. 2 Mrs. Bindu Mehta W/o. Late Mr. Vinod Mehta is daughter­in­law   of   late   Sh.   Rameshwar   Nath   Mehta,   whereas, respondents No. 3 to 5 are his grand daughters. Respondent No.6 is daughter of Late Sh. Rameshwar Nath Mehta. As per petition, apart         Smt. Bina Bahl Vs. State & Ors.              PC No. 42262/16             Page No. 2 of 28 from the petitioner, respondents no. 2 to 6 are other surviving legal heirs of late Sh. Rameshwar Nath Mehta.

3. Late Sh. Rameshwar Nath Mehta left behind residential H. No. 7A/24, W.E.A., Karol Bagh, Near Pusa Road, New Delhi - 05, which he had acquired   out   of   the   nucleus   of   property   owned   by   his   ancestors   in Pakistan. As mentioned above, late Sh. Rameshwar Nath Mehta died intestate, whereas, his wife predeceased him. As per petition, the said house was joint property of the family and was never partitioned or divided between the family members.