IN THE COURT OF SH. BALWINDER SINGH, MM-IV (East) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI [CASE NUMBER] Offence Complained of : 138 N.I.ACT Date of commission of Offence : 19.01.2010 to 16.02.2010 Unique Case I.D. No. : 02402R0075622010 JUDGMENT
[ENTITY] v. [ENTITY] [ENTITY] w/o Late Sh[ENTITY], H.No- 50, Tagore Gali No.13, Brahmpuri, Delhi 53.
COMPLAINANT [ENTITY] s/o Sh. [ENTITY], R/o 44B,DDA Flats, Pocket-1, Mayur Vihar Phase 1, Delhi.
ACCUSED Date of Institution : 17.03.2010 Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty Date of reserving judgment/order : 26.11.2014 Date of pronouncement : 05.12.2014 Final order : Acquitted Brief reasons for the decision of the case: -
1. The present case is a complaint case u/[SECTION] [ACT] (henceforth referred to as "[ACT]"). In brief the contention of Complainant [ENTITY] is that the accused was son of friend of the complainant and on account of close relations in both the families he was also a frequent visitor of her house. The complainant who used to work as a beautician before her marriage and had good savings out of that profession and later on the death of her husband also received good amount from her husband's Provident Fund and other schemes, was induced by the accused who approached the complainant submitting that he requires [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page No.1 of 16 money for his property business and told that that there is good return in that business and that he would pay the complainant more interest than what she is getting from the banks on her savings. As per the complaint, initially the complainant resisted to encash the FDR's(Fixed Deposits Receipts) and KVP's ( [ENTITY] the accused got succeeded in inducing the complainant to do the same and gave money to him promising higher rate of interest. Under such inducement and faith, the complainant gave more than Rs.50 Lakhs to the accused from 2005-2009 in parts as and when so requested by the accused for his property business from her savings as well as by borrowing from her friends and relatives. The accused also used to issue receipt for the large amounts on stamp papers and one of such receipt was issued by the accused in the month of August,2006 when the total amount already taken by the accused reached 26,50,000/- affirming the promise to pay with interest@ 3% . However, when the complainant asked for re-payment of the money the accused started avoiding the complainant and started quarrelling. However , on the persistent demands and follow-up by the complainant, the accused in discharge of his aforesaid liability issued a cheque bearing No.746076 dated 18.01.2010 for Rs. 50,00,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank Limited, Sector-18 Ansal's Fortune Arcade,K-Block, Noida, U.P.D, (subject matter of this case) in favour of complainant. However, the said cheque got dishonoured on presentation with complainant's bank and the same was communicated to complainant vide Cheque return memo of Bank dt. 19.01.2010 with remarks "Payment Stopped by the Drawer". Thereafter, the complainant sent a statutory legal notice dt. 01.02.2010 demanding payment but despite legal notice, no payment was made by accused to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant filed the present case in the court of Ld. ACMM (E) and the case was subsequently assigned to this court vide order dt. 17.03.2010.
[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page No.2 of 16
2. Cognizance of offence was taken accordingly. The complainant tendered her pre-summoning evidence by way of an Affidavit dated 23.03.2010 which is Ex.CW1/A. As far as documentary evidence is concerned, the cheque Ex.CW1/1, the Cheque Return Memo of Bank Ex.CW1/2, the statutory legal notice Ex.CW1/3, the original postal receipt Ex.CW1/4, [ENTITY] Ex.CW1/5, the reply of accused to legal notice Ex.CW1/6 and acknowledgement of receipt of Rs. 26,50,000/- by the accused Mark.'A' were also placed on record by complainant. Since on the basis of documentary evidence placed on record, prima facie offence under 138 [ACT] was made out against the accused, hence he was summoned vide order dt. 23.03.2010 to face trial.
3. After appearance of accused, notice of accusation u/[SECTION] [ACT] was served upon the accused on 03.06.2010 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The case was thereafter listed for CE by the Ld. Predecessor of this court.
4. In CE, the complainant got examined total four witnesses (including herself) in the court . She examined herself as CW1 and adopted her pre- summoning evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.CW1/A and also relied on other documents already exhibited by her during pre-summoning evidence which are Ex.CW1/1 to Ex.CW1/6 and Mark 'A'. CW2 is Ms. [ENTITY], CW3 is Smt. [ENTITY] and CW4 is Sh. [ENTITY]. All CW2,CW3 and CW4 tendered their evidence by way of affiadvit which are Ex.CW2/A, Ex.CW3/A and Ex. CW4/A. All the CW'S were cross examined by the defence counsel.
5. Thereafter CE was closed. The accused was examined u/[SECTION] [ACT] On 15.02.2013 in which the accused stated that he had taken a loan of Rs.
[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page No.3 of 16 5,70,500/- only from the complainant and the cheque in question was given for payment of disputed interest amonut on such loan which was briefly calculated by the complainant to be around 65,000/-. As per the accused he had already repaid the said loan amount to the complainant and also paid such amount of interest calculated by the complainant through demand draft. The accused denied that he took a loan of Rs. 50,00,000/- from the complainant or issued any kind of receipt of Rs. 26,50,000/- or any other receipt of money on the stamp papers. However, the accused admitted that he issued the cheque in question but it was a blank security cheque and he also admitted that it got dishonoured for the reasons "Payment Stopped" as the complainant told him that she has lost the cheque.
6. In his defence, the accused only examined himself and produced certain documents EX.DW1/1to DW1/7 and Mark'A'to'F' and thereafter the defence evidence was closed on 21.02.2014.
7. Thereafter, final arguments were addressed by both sides. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for complainant that in view of the documentary evidence on record and the statutory presumptions existing in favour of complainant u/[SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] the case against the accused stands proved. He also stated that evidence of all the complainant's witnesses as well as other documentary evidence on record have clearly established that the accused took loan from the complainant. Besides he also controverted the defences raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel and argued that the accused deserves to be convicted.
8. On the other hand, Ld. defence counsel has argued that the accused took a loan of Rs.5,70,500/- from the complainant which he has already paid [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page No.4 of 16 alongwith interest to her. As per the Ld. Defence counsel the complainant has misused the security cheque given by the accused alongwith four other blank cheques. The Ld defence counsel has raised following points to substantiate his arguments:
a.) Firstly, the Ld. Defence counsel has argued that it is the case of the complainant that she gave loan to the accused on account of friendly relations with his mother and accused and his family was unknown to her prior to 2005. However, in her cross exam she stated that i know the accused since November 2005 when the accused was trying to sell his house at Brahm puri, Gali no. 10 through Suhag Sadi House at Brahm Puri and was introduced to the complainant by one Ms. [ENTITY]. Thereafter, accused and his mother used to frequently visit the house of the complainant. As per the complaint , the complainant states that the accused told her that he needs money for investing the same in his property dealing business. However, in her cross she initially deposed that she cannot tell whether the accused was doing the business of property dealing in 2005 or was working as a customer care executive with HCL. But later on she deposed that accused told her that he is doing the work of investing in share market and property dealing. These contradiction in the main complaint which is Ex. CW1/A and the testimony of complainant shows that the complainant was not aware of the business/profession of the accused throughout the period when she gave loan to the accused. However, despite that she blindly without making any inquiry continued to pay the accused different sums of money at different point of times which gradually became more than Rs. 50,00,000/- and which is highly unbelievable.
b.) Secondly, the Ld. Defence counsel has argued that though the complainant has stated in her complaint as well as her testimony that she [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page No.5 of 16 gave different sums of loan ( more than 50 lacs)to the accused throughout the period starting from 2005 to 2009, however, she has not produced on record any documentary evidence in that regard. Neither she has produced on record any loan agreement entered into between her and the accused nor she has placed any other cogent proof on record to prove her financial capacity so as to advance such a big amount of money( though alleged to be given in parts and at different times) to the accused as loan . The complainant has herself deposed in her testiomony that prior to her marriage she was working as a beautician from door to door and later on one job which she got on compassionate grounds due to the death of her husband was also providing her a in-hand salary of just 15,383/-. Though, the complainant claimed to have Rs. 10 lacs from her savings and about Rs.10 lacs received from her deceased husband's Provident Fund, Gratuity, LIC etc., however, she did not placed on record any document to substantiate that claim. Further, the statement of the complainant that she borrowed some money from her friends and relatives (on interest ) to give the same to the accused is also highly unbelievable particularly in view of the fact the such money was taken by the complainant in the year 2007 and afterwards ( as clear from the testimony of CW2, CW3 and CW4) as during that period the already advanced money had crossed over Rs. 26 Lacs and no payment was made by the accused towards loan amount not even the interest on such loan amount as alleged by the complainant herself as she has herself placed on record one document Mark'A' showing acknowledgement and promise to pay by the accused about receipt of about Rs. 26,50,000/-( though specifically denied by the accused). Moreover, the complainant did not mentioned about any such loan advanced to the accused and being taken from her friends for giving it further to the accused in her Income Tax Return which also nullifies the claim of the complainant. The testimony of CW2, CW3 and CW4 also does not prove anything against the accused as they all just stated that they gave the loan to the complainant at a interest rate of [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page No.6 of 16 2% and 3 % respectively which was to be given by the complainant to the accused.Though, they all stated that it was given in the presence of accused, however, it is surprising that why it was not being given directly to the accused and why no written agreement/document was prepared in that regard if they did not had any faith over the accused. It is further shocking that though such loan was advanced by CW2, CW3 and CW4 on an interest of 2-3 % to the complainant till date no complaint/action was filed/initiated by any of them against the complainant though CW2 alleged to gave Rs.3,50,000/- ,CW3 alleged to gave Rs.3,00,000/- and CW4 alleged to gave Rs. 45,000/- to the complainant for the purpose of giving such money further to the accused. As per Ld. Defence counsel the whole story of the complainant is totally unrelieable and untrustworthy. The Ld. Defence counsel has also placed reliance on "[PRECEDENT]" to support his argument.
c.) Thirdly, the Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that Ex. DW1/7 placed on record proves loan transaction between the accused and the complainant and shows that only Rs.5,70,500/- was taken by the accused by way of loan from the complainant and Rs.7,95,100/- was paid by him towards payment of such loan amount which included interest on such amount as well. Further, as per the testimony of the complainant she herself deposed that on 24/8/2009 when she visited the house of the accused regarding payment of loan amount the mother of the accused took a quarrel with her and then she made a call on police helpline no.100 and police officials came at the house of the accused and took the complainant, accused and his mother to the police station. She further deposed that after 24/8/2009 she never met with the accused uptil the filing of the present complaint. However, in the main complaint complainant states that the present cheque in question was issued by the accused [ENTITY] on her [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page No.7 of 16 persistent demands and follow up and which bears the date of issuance as 18/1/2010. The present complaint was also filed on 17/3/2010. Thus, the testimony of the complainant itself raises doubts about the genuiness of claim made by her that the cheque in question was issued by the accused on 18/1/2010 and was not a blank security cheque given to her. Either the complainant has made a false statement in her complaint or else she has deposed falsely in the court. In either case the statement of the complainant can not be believed. Apart from this the Ld. Counsel has also placed reliance on several authorities to support his case some of which are following:
1.) [PRECEDENT]. 2.) [PRECEDENT]. 3.) [PRECEDENT], Supreme Court of India. 4.) [PRECEDENT] 5.) [PRECEDENT], High Court of Delhi. 6.) [PRECEDENT]. 7.) [PRECEDENT]. 8.) [PRECEDENT].
9. However, the Ld. Counsel for complainant has refuted all the contentions of the Ld. Defence counsel and has argued that all the contentions are baseless and without any substance. The Ld. Counsel has submitted that statutory presumptions u/[SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT] are in favour of the complainant. The accused has admitted that he issued the cheque in question although he denies that he filled up the body of the cheque . Even if the contention of the accused that he had given a blank but signed cheque is to be believed, it will not be of much help to the accused. On [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page No.8 of 16 this point, [SECTION] of the [ACT] is relevant. It says that if a person signs and delivers to another a negotiable instrument, either wholly or partially blank, he thereby gives prima facie, authority to the holder thereof to make or complete the instrument for the amount intended to be paid. Thus, if a cheque is tendered by a person to another, signed in blank, then he cannot escape his liability by merely saying that it was a blank cheque. He has to prove that he had no outstanding liablility towards the holder of the cheque. The Ld. Counsel also placed reliance on judgment in case of [PRECEDENT].
Further, the accused has not rebutted the presumption which exist against him u/[SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT]. The accused has merely asserted that he took a loan of just Rs.5,70,500/- from the complainant against which he has already paid an amount of Rs. 7,95,100/- (principal as well as interest) to the complainant. However, the accused has not placed on record any documentary proof in that regard except DW1/7,i.e, statement of accounts prepared by the account. However, that document has no value in eyes of law as it does not bears the signature of the complainant so as to suggest that actually any such amount was paid back to the complainant. Further, the accused claimed that the cheque in question was issued for payment of disputed interest amount on loan amount of Rs. 5,70,500/- which the complainant calculated to be around 65,000/- and stated that he paid such amount through a DD by depositing the fee for the admission of the complainant's son in college. However, he did not placed any such document on record. Moreover, the accused himself in his initial reply to legal notice of the complainant admitted that the accused took a loan of Rs. 15,70,500/- from the complainant and re-paid Rs. 27,95,100/- towards loan amount. Though in his corrigendum notice he stated that his earlier counsel made a mistake in calculation and wrongly admitted the loan amount to be Rs.15,70,500/- in place of Rs.5,70,500/- as digit 1 coming in [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page No.9 of 16 the total was meant for indicating column 1 and 2 respectively. Thus, the accused has totally failed to discharge its burden of rebutting the presumption existing against him u/[SECTION] and [SECTION] of [ACT] and accordingly the case of the complainant stands proved beyond all reasonable doubts.
10. I have heard final arguments and also perused the evidence on record. On the basis of final arguments led by both the parties, the following point remains for consideration before this court:-(1) Whether the amount mentioned on the instant cheque was the amount legally recoverable from the accused or not ? And (2) Whether the cheque given by accused was a blank, security cheque which was misused by complainant or not?
11. As far as offence u/[SECTION] of [ACT] is concerned, there are five essential ingredients of the offence, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "[PRECEDENT]", which are (i) drawing of the cheque, (ii) presentation of the cheque to the bank of the payee, (iii) return of the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, (iv) giving of notice to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount and (v) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. In an another case titled as [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble Supreme Court again re-iterated that -
"It is manifest that to constitute an offence under [SECTION] of the Act, the following ingredients are required to be fulfilled: (i) a person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person from out of that account;
(ii) The cheque should have been issued for the discharge, in whole or in [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page No.10 of 16 part, of any debt or other liability; (iii) that cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier; (iv) that cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank; (v) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 15 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; (vi) the drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice;
Being cumulative, it is only when all the afore-mentioned ingredients are satisfied that the person who had drawn the cheque can be deemed to have committed an offence under [SECTION] of the Act."
Since there is no dispute with respect to the issuance of cheque, fact of its dishonour and service and receipt of legal notice we directly comes to the first question which has arisen in the present case,i.e, whether the cheque in question was issued in discharge of any legally enforceable debt or not? It is the case of the complainant that since the accused has admitted the fact that he has issued the present cheque( though he is stating that it was a blank security cheque) the presumption under [SECTION] of [ACT] exists in her favour and it was the duty of the accused to rebut such presumption. However, the accused has miserably failed to do so.
However, before proceeding with appreciation of evidence it would be appropriate to enunciate the legal position regarding the standard of proof required to prove the liability of the accused in a case of dishonour of [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page No.11 of 16 cheque. It is a settled principle of law that in criminal matters the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and this principle admits no exception. However, at the same time, there are certain presumptions which run in favour of complainant in matters u/[SECTION] of the [ACT] as laid down in [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the Act. The accused needs to rebut those presumptions against him first of all in order to prove his innocence. However at the same time, the burden of proof on accused in rebutting the same is merely preponderance of probabilities as in civil cases. So, for rebutting these presumptions, the accused merely needs to raise a probable and reasonable defence. This defence can be raised by the accused by leading his evidence on the point or by relying on the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant. Whether or not the accused has managed to impeach the complainant's version, depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
It has been held in [PRECEDENT] that " Because both [SECTION] and [SECTION] require that the Court 'shall presume' the liability of the drawer of the cheques for the amounts for which the cheques are drawn, , it is obligatory on the court to raise this presumption in every case where the factual basis for the raising of the presumption has been established."
Infact it has been further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [ENTITY] v. Sri Mohan AIR 2010 SC 1898 that "the presumption mandated by [SECTION] of the Act indeed includes the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability." However at the same time it has also been observed in the above judgement of [ENTITY] (Supra) that the presumption "is of course [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page No.12 of 16 in the nature of a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested."
Now coming back to present case, in order to rebut the statutory presumption existing against the accused the accused has first of all relied on the complaint of the complainant itself and has refuted her claim of loan by stating that though the complainant has alleged that she advanced more then Rs. 50 Lacs to the accused and the present existing liabilty was around Rs.85 lacs, however, surprisingly the complainant who just came to know the accused and in his mother in 2005 reposed so much faith and confidence in them even without actually knowing the exact profession/business of the accused that she advanced such a large sum of money to the accused without even bothering to at least get the same recorded in black and white. No loan agreement ,no payment or acknowledgement receipt was prepared while advancing such loan amounts. Further, the complainant did not placed on record anything substantial so as to suggest that she was actually capable of advancing such huge amount . As per the testimony of the complainant she even borrowed around Rs.7 lacs from CW2, CW3 and CW4 and that too on interest for giving it further to the accused even when the advanced money had already crossed over Rs. 26,00,000/- and no payment not even interest on such amount was paid by the accused. The story of the complainant does not appears to be convincing on that point. The acknowledgement receipt (of Rs. 26,50,000/-) placed on record by the complainant and Mark'A' has also already been denied by the accused. The accused has also examined himself in the witness box and denied all the allegations of the accused. He has also placed one statement of account(manually prepared) Ex. DW1/7 on record though the complainant alleged the same to be false and fabricated. Further, the contention of the [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page No.13 of 16 Ld. Counsel that the accused has not produced any document on record to prove that he has made payment of Rs.7,95,000/- as alleged by him towards loan amount is also not very material particularly when the complainant herself has stated that the existing liability was that of around Rs. 85 lacs. Moreover, the Ld. Defence counsel has also raised a very material point that the document Ex.DW1/3 clearly shows that instructions for "stop payment" given by the accused through net banking with respect to the cheque in question were issued on 01/05/2009 that is more than 7 months prior to the date of issuance of cheque. Had the cheque been actually issued on 18/01/2010 as claimed by the complainant there would not have been any occasion for the accused to issue such instructions for "stop payment" seven months prior to its issuance which creates serious doubt whether the cheque in question was actually issued in discharge of any liability and that too on date mentioned on its body or whether it was actually a blank signed security cheque given by the accused towards adjustment of interest amount which the complainant told the accused to have been lost and later on misused by her in the present case as alleged by the accused. Further, since the complainant has not asked any question to the accused with respect to Ex. DW1/3 and not challenged its genuineness, the same also stands proved. Further, the contention of the complainant that the accused should have lead his own evidence to rebut the presumptions existing against him under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of [ACT] is also without any merits as in the case of "[PRECEDENT]", it was observed by the division bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court that so far as rebuttal of presumption by the accused arising under [SECTION] of [ACT] is concerned the same can be rebutted by producing evidence and the accused can discharge the onus placed on even from the materials placed on record by the Complainant himself as evidently in law he is entitled to do so (Para 46).
[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page No.14 of 16
12. Now, as far as the second question is concerned, the defence has taken the plea that the accused had taken just Rs.5,70,500/- from the complainant which were duly paid by him alongwith interest amounting to Rs. 7,95,100/-. The present cheque(blank but signed) was given for payment of interest amount on such loan of Rs. 5,70,500/- which the complainant calculated to be around 65,000/-. However, on the information of the complainant that she has lost the said cheque he instructed his bank through online mode to stop its payment. The copy of said instruction document is Ex. DW1/3 and as per the document such instruction was given on 01/05/2009 at 10:14 am. However, neither in the complaint nor in her testimony at any place the complainant deposed about the day/date on which she received the present cheque. As per the testimony of the complainant herself she visited the house of the accused on 24/08/2009 on which a quarrel took place between the complainant and accused and his mother. She further denied that on 29/08/2009 visited the house of the accused and even stated in her testimony that she never met with the accused after 24/08/2009 till the filing of the present complaint. As per the cheque the date of its issuance is 18/01/2010. So when the complainant never met with the accused after 24/08/2009 then when did she received the cheque in question from the present accused. The entire complaint as well the testimony of the complainant as well as all her witnesses is totally silent on that aspect. The only natural corollary which emerges from such silence and non-explanation is that the cheque in question was actually a blank security cheque which was later on misused by the complainant. Thus, the complainant could not prove it at all that the accused actually issued any such cheque to her towards discharge of any liability.
13. Hence, after giving my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by both the Learned Counsels for the accused and the Complainant and further keeping in my mind the judgments mentioned [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page No.15 of 16 above, I hereby hold that the accused has been able to raise probabilities and has been able to rebut the presumption which were raised against him. The defence raise by the accused is sufficient to discharge the initial burden of proof raised on him. On the other hand the complainant had to prove whether the cheques in question were issued by the accused in discharge of his legally enforceable debt. This court do not find any force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Complainant that the accused has failed to rebut the presumption under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. Presumption is not in itself evidence but it only enables a party in whose favour it exists to show that he has a prima facie case. In the case in hand the Presumptions under [SECTION] of [ACT] alone cannot be the sole basis to prove the case of the complainant. The materials and evidence available on the record do not bridge the gap. From the materials brought on record by the complainant it is highly improbable that the accused has given the cheque Exhibit CW1/1 to discharge his liability. Therefore, I hereby hold that the Complainant has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations that the cheque in question was issued by the accused in discharge of any legal debt or other liability.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I hereby hold that the complainant has not been able to prove and substantiate her allegation against the accused. Accordingly, accused [ENTITY] s/o Sh.[ENTITY] is hereby acquitted of the offence u/[SECTION] [ACT]. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance. Ordered Accordingly.
Announced in open court on Dated: 05.12.2014 (BALWINDER SINGH) MM(East)/KKD/05/12/2014 [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page No.16 of 16