IN THE COURT OF MS. ADITI GUPTA, M.M.,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Complaint Case No. 159/17
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/S Protect Security & House Keeping Pvt. Ltd …..COMPLAINANT
M/S New Shine Star …..ACCUSED
U/S : 138 OF N.I. ACT
P.S. Connaught Place
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT/ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 145 (2) OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 (26 OF 1881) FOR RE-CALLING THE COMPLAINANT WITNESSES FOR RE-EXAMINATION
THE APPLICANT/ACCUSED ABOVENAMED
MOST RESPECTFYULLY SHOWETH;
1 THAT the above captioned case is pending before this Hon’ble Court and the same is fixed for today for further proceeding.
2 THAT the aforesaid complaint case has been filed by the complainant on account of dishonor of the cheque bearing no.000066 dated 12.06.2017 for a sum of Rs 4,15,160/-.
3 THAT by way of present application, the applicant/accused craves the leave of this Hon’ble Court to recall the complainant witness who was examined at pre-summoning stage for re-examination on following ground/s;
(i) For the reason that the there is no liability against the applicant/accused to pay the cheque amount in the instant case as the applicant/accused have misused the security cheque without date given to the complainant at the time of the Contract.
(ii) For the reason that the cheque in question has been issued by the accused for the security purpose at the time of the contract between them and the same was not in discharge of any debt and liability against the complainant.
(iii) For the security amount of Rs. 3,88,000/-deposited by the complainant with accused was in the matter of the contract which relates to a commercial and civil dispute as the complainant failed to perform and comply the terms of the contract. It was in fact a sub contract as the main contract was given to the accused by the Medical Council of India, a Govt. body for the purpose of house keeping and manpower (Security ).
(iv) For the complainant did not perform its part of the sub – contract and did not pay the remuneration to the House keeping boys and housekeeping Supervisors and consequently the workers stopped the work under contract and the main contractor Medical Council of India cancelled the main contract resulting into a heavy monetary loss to the accused.
(v) For the reason that the applicant/accused has never received the notice U/s. 138 of N.I. Act for the dishonor of the aforesaid cheque in question and the very notice and its service proof annexed with the complaint is a matter of scrutiny.
(v) For the reason that the complainant has misused security cheque without date on it and has raised a civil dispute in the guise of Cheque bounce case without disclosing complete facts of the instant matter as the present case pertains to the Contract and its breach on the part of the complainant.
UNDER the circumstances stated above it is, therefore, in the interest of justice most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue the summons to the complainant witness/es for his/their cross examination as per the reasons mentioned in para 3 supra;
SUCH other or further relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted to the applicant/accused.
(Prem Raj Arya
(Avinash Nandan Sharma)
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
PLACE: NEW DELHI