2. Brief   facts   as   culminated   from   the   plaint   is   that   the plaintiff is proprietorship firm of India having its Head Office at Off­B­17,   East   Arjun   Nagar,   Karkardooma,   Shahdara,   Delhi­I where the plaintiff firm is doing its entire  administrative work and   entire   control   and   supervision   of   work   and   factory   at Sahibabad Industrial area Ghaziabad.   Mr. Ajay Vedhera is the   Prop.   of   the  plaintiff   firm.    The   firm   is   doing   business   of designing of showrooms and business offices.

Ajay Vadhera has given special power of attorney to its manager   accounts   Mr.   Gagan   Khattar   who   is   well conversent with facts and circumstances of the case, to act, the appear and to represent the plaintiff firm in the matter vide a SPA.  

Plaintiff's Case

1. Brief of the facts of the case is that the plaintiff is sole and exclusive owner of the property no. J-1/72, Second Floor (left side portion), CS No.12914/2016 Sahib Singh Chaudhary Vs. Laxmi Page No. 1 of 19 Gupta Colony, Khirki Extension, New Delhi-110 017 comprising of three bed rooms, drawing/dining, kitchen, two bathrooms and basement (north portion) (hereafter referred to as "said property"). The said property was purchased by the plaintiff in November 1996 (second floor) and January 1997 (basement). In the early of 1997 the defendant approached the plaintiff offering herself to run his beauty parlour in the name and style of "Dream Girl" in the basement of the said property of the plaintiff and she also proposed to the plaintiff that she also may be given a loan/advance of Rs.1,00,000/- as an advance which is to be deducted from her future monthly salary till the said amount is cleared. The plaintiff agreed to the said proposal of the defendant and employed herself accordingly. Pursuant to this appointment an Indemnity Bond and an Agreement was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant. Subsequent to the above appointment after some time the defendant requested the plaintiff to permit her to temporarily reside in the second floor of the said property, which was lying vacant at that time, till she got some another alternative accommodation in the same locality and the plaintiff greed for the same. But thereafter the defendant neither paid the said advance nor did she vacate the said property despite numerous requests to her to repay the said loan and vacate the said property. However, on the contrary the defendant threatened the plaintiff to involve him in frivolous cases if he tried to remove her from employment or from the said property. Further, the defendant never gave the statements of accounts pertaining to income and expenditure of the beauty parlour. In fact being the lady and in the garb of her employment, she grabbed the said property of the plaintiff.

2. Briefly stated, this case was lodged on the complaint of Sangeeta and in her complaint dated 04.10.2010, complainant made following relevant allegations. She was married to Ravinder Kumar (respondent no. 1 herein) on 17.04.2004 and her sister namely Santosh @ Preeti was also married with Hemant Kumar (respondent no. 2 herein) according to Hindu rites and rituals, who joined her matrimonial home after her gauna in the year 2007. It is alleged that complainant was being harassed, taunted and abused for bringing dowry right from the beginning of her marriage by all the respondents. All the respondents used to commit cruelty upon her for bringing insufficient dowry as per their expectation. It is further alleged that both complainant and her sister were compelled to do all the household chores. It is further alleged that on the instigation of respondent no. 2 Sh. Hemant Kumar and respondent no. 3 Sh. Lal Chand, respondent no. 1 Sh. Ravinder Kumar stared demanding a car from the complainant, on account of which complainant and her sister were mercilessly beaten. It is further alleged that on 11.07.2010, both complainant and her sisters were again beaten by all the respondents. It is further alleged that on 17.09.2010, when father of the complainant visited the matrimonial home of complainant, all the respondents misbehaved with him and complainant alongwith her sister was thrown out of their matrimonial home by the respondents. They were not allowed to watch TV, compelled to do house hold chores and they were harassed and beaten. All the jewellery and stridhan article was stated to be lying in Page 2 of 10 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision Nos.74/2017 possession of their in-laws.

2. Briefly stated, this case was lodged on the complaint of Smt. Santosh @ Preeti and in her complaint dated 16.04.2012, complainant made following relevant allegations. She was married to Hemant Kumar (respondent no. 1 herein) on 17.04.2004 and her sister namely Sangeeta @ Nitu was also married with Ravinder Kumar (respondent no. 2 herein) according to Hindu rites and rituals. It is further alleged that Smt. Sangeeta @ Nitu joined her matrimonial home after her gauna in the year 2017. It is further alleged that complainant was being harassed, tauted and abused right from the beginning of her marriage by all the respondents on account of bringing insufficient dowry. In the month of January 2006, respondent no. 1 had beaten complainant on account of demand of Rs. 2 lacs on the instigation of his family members. Even sister of complainant was also harassed by her husband and in laws, after her joining her matrimonial home. They were not allowed to watch TV, compelled to do house hold chores and they were harassed and beaten. It is further alleged that on 17.09.2010, when father of the complainant visited the matrimonial home of complainant, all the respondents misbehaved with him and complainant alongwith her sister was thrown out of their matrimonial home by the respondents. All the jewellery and stridhan article was stated to be lying in possession of their inlaws.

It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for petitioner that she has instructions   from   petitioner   to   withdraw   the   present   case   under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act for interim relief. 

Separate statement of Ld. Counsel for petitioner recorded to   this   effect   and   application   under   Section   9   of   Arbitration   & Conciliation Act is disposed as withdrawn.

File   be   consigned   to   record   room   after   necessary compliance. 

(Tarun Yogesh)       ADJ­03 : Dwarka Courts Delhi/22.12.2017    

2. Gaganpreet Singh     S/o Jarnail Singh     R/o H. No. 337, New Ashapuri,     Badawal Road,  Ludhiana, State VS Ranjit Singh Kandola and Anr. FIR no. 129/2012 PS -  Old Delhi Railway Station Page no. 1/45     Punjab.

3. Pradeep Kumar      (Discharged vide order dated 05.08.2013) S/o Birender R/o Piandel Medico, Via 101   H. No. 2 (Jasse Ankona), Italy Permanent Address:

Village­Reela, Tehsil­Garh Shankar PS­Metiana, Distt­Hosiyarpur, Punjab.

Date of Institution  : 29.11.2012 Date of Arguments : 07.12.2017 Date of Judgment : 22.12.2017 JUDGMENT:­ 1.   Brief case of the prosecution as per charge­sheet is: (a) On   25.09.2012   on   receipt   of   DD   no.   8A   regarding 

2. Tajinder Singh, S/o Karan Singh Prop. M/s Ram Jyoti Drinks Mohalla Bukhara, Noorpur, Chandpur Road, Bijnore, UP-251001 ...............................Accused Old Case Number. : 437/1 New Case Number. : 30200/16 Date of Institution of Case. : 19.08.2013 CC No. 30200/16 page 1 / 19 Offence Complained Of. : U/s. 138 N.I. Act Plea of the Accused. : Not guilty Arguments Heard On. : 16.12.17 Final Order. : Conviction Date of Judgment. : 22.12.17 :: JUDGMENT :: -

MC No. 388/2016 FIR No. 402/2006 PS : Naraina Page no. 2/10 State Vs Rajesh and ors

Sunny with a rod and accused Rajesh hit complainant with a stick. Accused Manish and Dev gave beatings to husband of complainant.

Accordingly, the present FIR was registered for the offence u/s 323/451/354/34 IPC.

2. Arguments on charge were heard and charge for the offence under Section 323/34/354/451 IPC was framed against accused Dev Kumar and charge for the offence under Section 323/34 IPC was framed against accused Rajiv Ranjan @ Raju.

3. Prosecution examined 3 witnesses in its support:

3.1. PW-1 / complainant entered the witness box on 01.12.2014 and stated that 8 years back, on 18th day of a month, she had switched on the water motor but the water was dirty and therefore, she switched it off. Thereafter, accused persons again switched it on and when she requested him (?) he started quarreling with her. Accused Rajesh, Rajiv Ranjan @ Raju and his friend attacked her and slapped her. They abused her. Complainant got frightened and returned to her room. When later, her husband came at about 6:30 am, after finishing his night shift, he confronted the accused persons. However, he was beaten up by them. The same day at around 6-7 P.M., accused persons started quarreling. Accused Dev forcibly entered her room. He molested her daughter Ms. A by touching her breast and trying to hug her. Accused Rajesh hit complainant with a wooden stick . Complainant raised alarm after which neighbours gathered. Sh. Sunny who was the tutor of Ms. A saved them. Thereafter, MC No. 388/2016 FIR No. 402/2006 PS : Naraina Page no. 3/10 State Vs Rajesh and ors PCR call made and complainant was taken to hospital. Complainant gave her statement Ex. PW1/A and the Iron rod with which complainant was hit vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B.

FIR No. 09/11 PS : Nanakpura Page no. 2/16 State Vs Madhusudan Soni

10 lacs or flat. Accused Madhusudan was instigated by the landlady to divorce complainant. On 13.01.2010, accused Madhusudan did not celebrate the first Lohri with complainant and rather spent the day with the landlady. When he returned at late night and complainant inquired from him, he gave beatings to complainant. On Holi on 01.03.2010, accused celebrated the day with the landlady. In the evening he picked up a quarrel without any reason to compel complainant to leave the house on her own. On 01.05.2010, complainant was not well and she took leave from the house. On this accused Madhusudan told her that she has spoiled his holiday. On 04.05.2010, accused Madhusudan told complainant that he would go office late. When complainant went to the first floor to hand over the key of room, she saw accused Madhusudan and the landlady in compromising position. She witnessed the scene for some time and then went to her office. Accused Madhusudan and the landlady noticed that complainant had seen them embracing and kissing each other. In the office she informed her parents about the incident over telephone. When complainant returned in the evening, accused Madhusudan and the landlady kicked her out of the house in wearing clothes. They threatened her not to return. Since that day complainant is living with her parents. She has not been returned her gifted and istridhan articles, despite requests.

2. After   completion   of   requirements   of   Section   207   Cr.P.C., matter was committed to the court of Sessions.

CHARGE

3. All accused persons have been charged for the offences under section 302/34 IPC and 27 Arms Act.    Also accused Rajesh Gahlot  @ Khote is charged for  offence under section 174A IPC. All accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Presently accused Rajesh Gahlot @ SC No 441225/2016                                                            State Vs Nakul Etc  2 of 7 Khote and Praveen Gujjar @ Babbu are in JC where as accused Nakul is on bail.

2.   Charge in respect of offence under Section 376 IPC was framed against the accused on 21.08.2017.

3. Accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed trial.

4. To prove its case, prosecution has examined three witnesses. 

State Vs. Kacho Imtiyaz Ali Khan FIR no. 747/2017, PS Model Town. Page No. 1

5. PW­1 is the prosecutrix. She has deposed that she alongwith her friend Richa used to reside at PG at Kamla Nagar. In the year  2012. Kacho   Imtiyaz   Ali   Khan   met   her   in   the   fest   of   NCC   at   Kirori   Mal College. He started meeting with her and  friendship  developed between her   and   Imtiayaz.   Kacho   Imtiyaz   Ali   Khan   is   present   in   the   Court. Accused started harassing her, so she went to the PS, where IO met her. IO   had   given   dictation   to   her,   and   on   her   dictation   she   wrote   the complaint. Thereafter, she was taken to BJRM Hospital, where she was medically examined.   On the next day, she was produced before LD. MM,  where  her statement U/s 164 Cr. PC Ex. PW 1/A was recorded but she has volunteered that she had given the  statement before MM on the asking of IO and  NGO Official.

(i) It was alleged that on February 13, 2007 at about 06:30 am when they reached National Highway Koyala Village near Shriram School, PS Bhot, District Rampur, offending vehicle i.e. Trolla bearing registration no. HR-38-G 0527 came from opposite direction at fast speed in a rash and negligent manner. It was alleged that the said offending vehicle was coming from wrong side at an uncontrolable speed, consequently, the offending vehicle hit in the car. Due to the forceful impact of offending vehicle, three persons namely Pratap Singh Rawat, Dinesh Kumar Kanyal & Mohini Devi sustained fatal injuries whereas other two persons namely Janaki Devi & Jaswant Singh sustained multiple dangerous/grievous injuries.

Ankit Aggarwal vs. Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal & ors. Madhu Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors. Madhu Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors. Rani Aggarwal vs. The National Insurance Company & ors.

under Section 279/338/304-A/427 IPC was registered at PS Vrindavan, Mathura, UP.

(i) It was alleged that at the time of accident, the alleged truck was being driven by respondent No.4 (Pappu) whereas offending santro car was being driven by Mr. Samarth Aggarwal, who also sustained fatal injuries in the said accident and succumbed to his injuries at the spot.

3. Claim petition was contested by respondent No.4 (The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.) & respondent No.6 (The New India Assurance Company).

(i) Respondent No.4 (OIC) admitted in the reply that the bus was duly insured with it. Similarly, respondent No.6 admitted that the truck was insured with it.

(ii) Vide order dated September 16, 2009, respondent No.1 & 2 were proceeded ex-parate whereas respondent No.3 was proceeded ex-parate on September 3, 2008 which respondent No.5 was proceeded ex-parate on February 16, 2009.

   MACT No. 356419/16 (Old Suit No. 761/ 11)    Page No. 4    of  15                                                                                                Binod Kujur & ors. vs. Hussain imam & ors.

2. After filing the petition, notice of the petition was given to the general public by publication in the newspaper "Veer Arjun" dated 21.09.2017 but none appeared from general public to oppose or contest the petition.

3. Statement of PW-1 Sh. Harvinder Singh Kharbanda was recorded on 01.11.2017. He tendered his affidavit which is Ex.PW1/1. He tendered in evidence his Aadhar Card as Ex.PW1/1, original death certificate of late Sh. Joginder Singh as Ex.PW1/2, original death certificate of late Mrs. Santosh Kharbanda as Ex.PW1/3, Sehedule-A wherein the details of securities of deceased Sh. Joginder Singh specified as Ex.PW1/4, copies of share certificates of listed shares held by deceased Sh. Joginder Singh as Ex.PW1/5, copies of unlistted share certificates as specified in column III of Schedule A are Ex.PW1/6 and statement of bank account of late Sh. Joginder Singh as Ex.P-1.

2.   I have heard Sh. R.N.Yadav, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist/accused and   State/respondent   through   Sh.   Yogender   Adari,   Ld.   Addl.   PP   for State.  I have perused the record of revision and of Trial Court. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions put forth.

3.   Revision   petition   rests   on   the   premise   that   due   to   exigency revisionist   had   to   go   abroad   resulting   in   his   inability   to   appear   on 08.12.2017,   the   date   of   hearing   before   the   Magisterial   Trial   Court. Revisionist  submits  that  he had to go urgently on death occasion  of father  of  his very close friend.   Revisionist submits he is of age 33 years, Science Graduate, by profession a pilot having in his credit 6500 flying hours in two private airlines.   Revisionist also submits that he CR No.566/17 Page 2 of 4  undertakes to be punctual on all future dates of hearing and will be in attendance in time and shall never default in appearance on all the dates of hearing before Trial Court and this being his first default, he be given an opportunity in the form of protection and face the trial on merits. Summoned Trial Court Record also reveals that it was the first occasion when the warrants against the applicant/accused were issued. Bail order of applicant/accused contained request of IO for direction to accused not to leave city till investigation is complete upon which the Magisterial court had directed to accused to intimate IO for the same. There was no precondition  in  bail  order   for   accused  to  take  permission   from  Trial Court to go abroad during trial.

2. It is averred that on 15.02.1988 the petitioner let out one shop at Q-6, Vikas Vihar, Manas Kunj Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi specifically shown in red colour in the site plan having the dimension of 8 x 10 at monthly rent of Rs.350/- per month excluding electricity charges. It is also submitted that now monthly rate of rent is Rs.385/- per month since October, 2013.

It is further averred that respondent had paid rent of said shop till October, 2013 and thereafter whenever it was demanded by the petitioner, respondent flatly refused to pay the same.

It is further averred that respondent has neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent w.e.f. October, 2013 till date excluding electricity charges despite repeated demands by petitioner.

 2.   During the trial, accused no. 2 remained absent after  obtaining bail in the present case. He was declared absconder  vide order dt 12.10.2017. None had appeared on behalf of the  accused company though its Managing Director and Director  V.P Malhotra Vs. Silver Star Fashion Pvt Ltd. & Ors.       CIS NO. 629117/16                  Page 2 of  10 appeared.     Therefore,   accused   company   was   proceeded   in  absentia u/s 305 Cr.PC. 

 3. It   is   submitted   by   the   complainant   that   accused   no. 

2and   3   were  looking   after   the   management   of   affairs   and  business of accused company and are looking after day to  day   management   of   accused   company.   On   30.10.2014,  accused no. 2 had taken unsecured loan of Rs 25,00,000/­  from the complainant which was transferred to RTGS to the  account of accused company. The said loan was given @ 2%  per   month.       Accused   company   issued   a   cheque   dt.  15.02.2016 for a sum of Rs. 25 lacs drawn on Oriental Bank  of   Commerce,   Udyog   Vihar­V,   Gurgaon   in   favour   of   the  complainant   to   repay   the   loan   amount.   When   the  complainant  presented the above said cheque, the same was  returned vide returning memo dated 17.02.2016. Thereafter,  accused company issued fresh cheque through accused no. 2  bearing no. 110555,dt. 30.04.2016 of Rs 25 lacs drawn on  Axis   Bank   Ltd,   Sector­10,   Gurgaon.   The   said   cheque   got  dishonoured for the reasons funds insufficient by returning  memo  dt  03.05.2016.      Thereafter, complainant  got issued  legal demand notice dated 07.05.2016 through registered post  but   accused   failed   to   make   the   payment   against   the  dishonoured cheque within 15 days from the date of service  of legal demand notice. Hence, the present case was filed. V.P Malhotra Vs. Silver Star Fashion Pvt Ltd. & Ors.       CIS NO. 629117/16                  Page 3 of  10

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 04.10.2016 at about 10.30 AM, when both deceased persons were crossing the Yamuna Express Way Road in front of Super Tech Sec­96, Noida, offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL­1RT­ 6276 (Wagon R Car), being driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, hit both the deceased persons due to which they suffered fatal injuries. 

3. FIR  No. 915/16 under  Section­279/304­A of Indian Penal Code was got registered at PS Sector 39, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. Police   conducted   investigation   and   on   completion   of   investigation   found respondent No. 1 accused of rash and negligent driving, hence charge­sheeted him for the commission of offence under Section 279/304­A of Indian Penal Code.

...(Owner /Respondent no.2)

3. United India Insurance E-85, Himalya House, K. G. Marg, Connaught Place New Delhi-110001 ...(Insurer/Respondent no.3) ...Respondents Suit No.4162/16                                  Mohd. Israil Vs. Sh. Yogender & Ors.          Page No. 1/12 Date of DAR : 13.11.2014 Date of Decision : 23.12.2017 AWARD

1. DAR/Claim petitions where no serious question of law or fact are involved can be disposed off by short orders. Negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is to be proved on the basis of preponderance of probability, compensation is to be assessed and where the insurance company raises any statutory defence, liability to pay the compensation is to be determined.