Complaint To Borivali (Transolutions)

I/am/We/are/not a members of the welfare fund. Therefore stamp of Rs.
2/- is/are/not affixed

herewith N.B. : Strike out which is not Applicable.
Adv. Sign
IN THE COURT OF LD. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE’S
26th COURT AT BORIVALI, MUMBAI
C.C. No.
State of Maharashtra
Through MHB Colony Police ..COMPLAINANT.
V/S.
Arati Vinod Patil & others

All are residing in Mumbai
)..ACCUSED.
We, the above named Prosecution , hereby appoint Mr. ARVIND
A. YADAV, Advocate High Court, Bombay to act, appear and plead for
me in the above matter.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set and subscribed my hands to
this writing on dated this 12th day of April, 2018
Accepted
Mr. Arvind A. Yadav
Advocate of Accused
Office Add.: S.P.Road, Near
Awadhvidhyalay Dharkhadi
Dahisar (East) Mumbai 400068

I/am/We/are/not a members of the welfare fund. Therefore stamp of Rs. 2/- is/are/not affixed
Adv. Sign
26th COURT AT BORIVALI, MUMBAI
C.C. No. 1186/PW/13
State of Maharashtra
Through MHB Colony Police ..COMPLAINANT.
V/S.
1. Mrs. Prema Joshi 2. Mrs. Neeta 3.Mr. Nelesh
4. Mr. Sanjay 5.Mr. Krishna, 6, Mr. Ramchandra
All are residing in Mumbai
)..ACCUSED.
We, the above named Accused, hereby appoint Mr. ARVIND A.
YADAV, Advocate High Court, Bombay to act, appear and plead for me
in the above matter.
this writing on dated this 12th day of April, 2018
1.Mrs. Prema Joshi

2. Mrs. Neeta
3.Mr. Nelesh
4. Mr. Sanjay
5.Mr. Krishna,
6 Mr. Ramchandra
Accepted
Mr. Arvind A. Yadav
Advocate of Accused
Office Add.: S.P.Road, Near
Awadhvidhyalay Dharkhadi
Dahisar (East) Mumbai 400068

43rd COURT AT BORIVALI, MUMBAI
C.C. No. 2011
KAMDHENU CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., ..COMPLAINANT.
V/S.
MR. NAKUL YADAV ....ACCUSED.
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE
C.R. NO. 17 AT Borivali
ApplicationNO. /2015
MRS. REKHA PAL ………. APPLICANT.
V/s.
MR.UDAY SHANKAR PAL. & Others

…. Respondents
APPLICATION FOR
PROVIDING US TIME TO
PAY THE COURT FEE:-
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR:-
It is most respectfully submitted as under that the Complainant is
going to file the abovesaid complaint u/s. 138 of N.I. Act against the
Accused above named, however Complainant is not in position to pay

the Court fee at the time of filing of the complaint while complaint is
very much required to file today itself.
Therefore this Hon’ble Court be pleased to provide time to the
Complainant to pay the Court fee in the abovesaid complaint.
And for which act of kindness Complainant is in duty bound to
every pray.
Place:- Borivali, Mumbai
Date:- 02/06/2011
Advocate for Complainant
Adv. Sign
C.C. No. 2011
KAMDHENU CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., )

having registered office at Balmohan Welfare )
Society, Room No. 7, Laxman Nagar, Kurar )
Village, Malad (East), Mumbai – 400 097 )..COMPLAINANT.
V/S.
MR. NAKUL YADAV )
Adarsh Society, Ranisati Marg, Malad (East), )
Mumbai – 400 097 )..ACCUSED.

I, LAXMAN CHIRANJEEVI LAXMAN MARAMPALLY,
Authorised Signatory of Complainant, do hereby appoint RAHUL
TIWARI, Advocate High Court, Bombay to act, appear and plead for
this writing on dated this 2nd day of June, 2011
Accepted
RAHUL TIWARI Signature of Complainant
Advocate High Court, Bombay
Office Add.: Plot No. 26-A,
Hawa Hira Park, Kurar Village,
Malad (East), Mumbai – 400 097
Correspondence No. 28407865
C.C. No. 2011
V/S.
MR. NAKUL YADAV )
Adarsh Society, Ranisati Marg, Malad (East), )

Mumbai – 400 097 )..ACCUSED.
COMPLAINT U/S. 138 r/w. 142 OF THE
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT 1881
AS AMENDED UPTO DATE:-
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR WORSHIP:-
THE COMPLAINANT ABOVENAMED STATES AS UNDER:-
1. The Complainant states that Accused has obtained loan from the
Complainant and in repayment of the dues of Complainant, the accused
has issued a cheque of Rs. 1,35,150/- (Rupees One Lacs Thirty Five
Thousand One Hundred Fifty only) bearing No. 513842 dated
08/04/2011 drawn on DCB Bank, Versova Branch, Mumbai – 400 061
due and payable by the Accused to the Complainant.
2. The Complainant further states that the accused has issued the
abovesaid cheque in repayment of the dues, due and payable by him to
the Complainant. The Complainant states that the Complainant had
presented the above referred cheque in his bank MALAD SAHKARI
BANK LTD., Kurar Village, Malad (East), Mumbai – 400 097 but the
same was returned unpaid with the cheques return memo of DCB Bank,
Versova Branch, Mumbai – 400 061 dated 11/04/2011 with an
endorsement “ACCOUNT CLOSED” which clearly shows that the
accused never had the intention of clearing his liability of dishonored

Exhibit ‘A’ above referred cheque. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit ‘A’ is the
xerox copy of cheque bearing No. 513842 dated 08/04/2011 drawn on
DCB Bank, Versova Branch, Mumbai – 400 061. Hereto annexed and
Exhibit ‘B’ marked Exhibit ‘B’ is the copy of returned Bank Memo dated
11/04/2011 of DCB Bank, Versova Branch, Mumbai – 400 061.
3. The Complainant submits that after the receipt of the said
dishonoured cheque and returned Memo from the Bank, the
Complainant through his Advocate sent a Notice of Demand dated
22/04/2011 and called upon the Accused to pay the amount of the
abovesaid cheque amounting to Rs. 1,35,150/- (Rupees One Lacs Thirty
Five Thousand One Hundred Fifty only) within 15 days from the
Exhibit ‘C’ receipt of the notice. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit ‘C’ is the
xerox copy of the Advocate’s notice dated 22/04/2011.
4. The Complainant states that the notice was sent by Regd. A.D. to
the Accused at the last known address of the Accused with proper and
necessary charges paid to the concerned services, however the original
receipt which was issued by the post office was misplaced by the
Complainant therefore the Complainant through his Advocate on
01/06/2011 has made an application for the issuance of the duplicate
receipt to the Post Office, when the Post Master of the Ranisati Marg
has confirmed about the receipt by giving the reply on 01/06/2011 and
Complainant has also received returned packet from the post office.
Exhibit ‘D’ Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit ‘D’ colly are the copies of
colly Advocate’s letter dated 01/06/2011 and reply of the Post Master Exhibit
‘E’ dated 01/06/2011. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit ‘E’ is the copy
of returned packet.
5. The Complainant states that the Accused inspite of Demand vide
notice dated 22/04/2011 failed and neglected to pay the said amount.
The Complainant further submits that knowingly fully well that there is
no amount in the account of the accused, he has issued the abovesaid
cheques, which was dishonoured and returned uncashed, therefore, the
accused has committed an offence punishable u/s. 138 of Negotiable
Instruments as amended upto date r/w. section 142 of the said Act. Not
only that the above cheque was issued by the Accused with clear cut
intention to cheat the Complainant, otherwise knowing fully well that
accused has no amount in his account, the accused would not have
issued the said cheque in favour of the Complainant, therefore, the
commission of the abovesaid act willfully on the part of the accused is
nothing but an offence punishable u/s. 138 of the said act and the
accused is liable to be punished accordingly. The Complainant further
submits that the Complainant has sent the legal notice upon the Accused
on the last known address which was known to the Complainant.

6. The Complaint is filed within time, the cheque was dishonoured
within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court and thus cause of action
has also arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court and
therefore, this Hon’ble Court is got ample power and jurisdiction to try
and entertain the present complaint.
THE COMPLINANT, THEREFORE PRAYS THAT-
This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue the necessary process u/s. 138 &
142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 against the accused
abovenamed and he may be dealt with according to law.
And for this act of kindness the Complainant is in duty bound and
shall ever pray.
Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai, ]
On this 2nd day of June, 2011 ]
COMPLAINANT.
BEFORE ME.
Explained & Identified by me.
Advocate for the Complainant,
LIST OF DOCUMENTS / WITNESSES:-
1. Cheque of Rs. 1,35,150/-
2. Return Memo dated 11/04/2011
3. Demand Notice dated 22/04/2011
4. Advocate’s letter dated 01/06/2011
5. Reply of the Post Master dated 01/06/2011

6. Officers from both Banks
7. Any other and further documents/witnesses with the permission
of this Hon’ble Court.
C.C. No. 2011
V/S.
MR. NAKUL YADAV ....ACCUSED.
INDEX
Sr. No. Particulars Page Nos.
1. Roznama :I - IV
2. Complaint :1-5
3. Vakalatnama :6
4. Exhibit ‘A’ : Xerox copy of cheque :7
5. Exhibit ‘B’ : Xerox copy of Bank return Memo :8
6. Exhibit ‘C’ : Xerox copy of the Advocate’s
notice dated 22-04-2011 : 9 - 10
7. Exhibit ‘D’ colly are the xerox copies of
Advocate’s letter dated 01/06/2011 and reply of
the Post Master Postal : 11- 12
8. Exhibit ‘E’: Xerox copy of returned packet :13 -
Last page…….
IN THE COURT OF LD.
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE’S
C.C. No. 2011

KAMDHENU CO-OP. CREDIT
SOCIETY LTD., ..COMPLAINANT.
V/S.
MR. NAKUL YADAV ...ACCUSED
COMPLAINT
nd
Dated this 2 day of June, 2011
----------------------------------------------
RAHUL I. TIWARI
Advocates for the Complainant,
Plot No.26-A, Hawa Hira Park,
Kurar Village, Malad (East),
Mumbai – 400 097.
Adv. Sign
IN THE Hon’ble Court Of Sh. Mukesh Rao, Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class (Special Court), Dist Gurgaon, Haryana.
Criminal Complaint No……………… of
M/S. KONICA TEXTILES, )

Having address Plot No. 3, Opp. C-Block, )
Near Railway Crossing, Ansal Palam Vihar, )
Gurgaon, Haryana. )..COMPLAINANT.
V/S.
M/S. WHITE CUBE )
Having address 95-96, Govt Industrial Estate, )
Near Hindustan Naka, Charkop, Kandivali (W), )
Mumbai – 400 067. )..ACCUSED.
I, MADAN GOPAL TULSIAN, Director of M/S. WHITE CUBE
Retailers Private Ltd. Authorised Signatory of Complainant, do hereby
appoint K.R. TIWARI & CO., Advocates High Court, Bombay to act,
appear and plead for me in the above matter.
this writing on dated this day of May, 2011
Accepted
K.R. TIWARI & CO. Signature of Complainant

CASE NO. /SS/2011
VERIFICATION STATEMENT OF THE COMPLAINANT.
NAME: LAXMAN CHIRANJEEVI LAXMAN MARAMPALLY Age. yrs
Authorised Signatory of Complainant
Occ- Service, R/o.: Malad
On solemn affirmation as under:-
I am the Authorised Signatory of the Complainant and I know the facts
of this case.
1. That Accused has taken loan of Rs. 1,25,525/- (Rupees One Lacs
Twenty Five Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Five only) as and by way of
friendly loan and in discharge of his legal liability of payment of Rs.
1,25,525/- (Rupees One Lacs Twenty Five Thousand Five Hundred Twenty
Five only) which was advanced by him, the Accused issued a cheque bearing
No. 663251 of ICICI Bank Ltd., Gorgeaon Branch, Goregaon (East), Mumbai
– 400 067 dated 16/01/2011.
2. However the aforesaid cheque when deposited by me with my bankers
MALAD SAHKARI BANK LTD., Kurar Village, Malad (East), Mumbai –
400 097, was dishonoured and returned with the memos of dishonor dated
12/02/2011 with bearing remarks “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT”. The said
intimation was received by me from my bankers 13/02/2011.
3. Thereafter I through my Advocate’s demand notice dated 25/02/2011
sent by R.P.A.D & U.P.C. called upon the Accused to pay the amount under
the said dishonoured cheque within 15 days at the receipt of the same. The
said notice was replied by the Accused through his Advocate’s letter dated
05/03/2011 and denied all the contentions of the Complainant.

4. Despite receipt of the notice, the Accused failed to pay the amount under the
said dishonoured cheque within the stipulated time. Hence I filed the present
complaint on 31/03/2011.
I rely upon the relevant facts and documents as mentioned in the complaint.
The Accused has committed an offence punishable u/s. 138 of N.I Act. Hence I pray
for issuance of process against accused.
Before me
Metropolitan Magistrate
43rd Court, Borivali, Mumbai Complainant
ORDER
Heard, perused the complaint, verification statement of the Complainant and
Original documents, as prima facie case is made out against Accused u/s. 138 of N.I.
Act, 1881.
Issue process for the offence punsishable u/s. 138 r/w. N.I. Act, returnable on
………………
Metropolitan Magistrate
43rd Court, Borivali, Mumbai

C.C. No. 2011
V/S.
MR. SHIVSHANKAR RAMLAL GUPTA ....ACCUSED.
APPLICATION FOR
PROVIDING US TIME TO
PAY THE COURT FEE:-
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR:-
It is most respectfully submitted as under that the Complainant is
going to file the abovesaid complaint u/s. 138 of N.I. Act against the
Accused above named, however Complainant is not in position to pay
the Court fee at the time of filing of the complaint while complaint is
very much required to file today itself.
Therefore this Hon’ble Court be pleased to provide time to the
Complainant to pay the Court fee in the abovesaid complaint.

And for which act of kindness Complainant is in duty bound to
every pray.
Place:- Borivali, Mumbai
Date:- 31/03/2011
Adv. Sign
C.C. No. 2011

V/S.
MR. SHIVSHANKAR RAMLAL GUPTA )
an adult, Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai, residing at )
D-15, Iraniwadi, Chincholi Gate, Opp. Squatter )
Colony, Malad (East), Mumbai – 400 097 )..ACCUSED.
I, LAXMAN CHIRANJEEVI LAXMAN MARAMPALLY,
Authorised Signatory of Complainant, do hereby appoint RAHUL

TIWARI, Advocate High Court, Bombay to act, appear and plead for
this writing on dated this 31ST day of March, 2011
Accepted
RAHUL TIWARI Signature of Complainant
C.C. No. 2011
V/S.
MR. SHIVSHANKAR RAMLAL GUPTA )
an adult, Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai, residing at )
D-15, Iraniwadi, Chincholi Gate, Opp. Squatter )
Colony, Malad (East), Mumbai – 400 097 )..ACCUSED.

1. The Complainant states that Accused has obtained loan from the
Complainant and in repayment of the dues of Complainant, the accused
has issued a cheque of Rs. 1,25,525/- (Rupees One Lacs Twenty Five
Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Five only) bearing No. 663251 dated
16/01/2011 drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd, Goregaon Branch, Goregaon
(East), Mumbai – 400 063 due and payable by the Accused to the
Complainant.
the Complainant. The Complainant states that the Complainant had
presented the above referred cheque in his bank MALAD SAHKARI
BANK LTD., Kurar Village, Malad (East), Mumbai – 400 097 but the
same was returned unpaid with the cheques return memo of ICICI Bank
Ltd., Goregaon Branch, Mumbai dated 12/02/2011 with an endorsement
“FUNDS INSUFFICIENT” which clearly shows that the accused never
had the intention of clearing his liability of dishonored above referred

Exhibit ‘A’ cheque. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit ‘A’ is the xerox copy of
cheque bearing No. 663251 dated 16/01/2011 drawn on ICICI Bank
Ltd, Goregaon Branch, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400 063. Hereto
Exhibit ‘B’ annexed and marked Exhibit ‘B’ is the copy of returned Bank Memo
dated 02/02/2011 of ICICI Bank Ltd., Goregaon Branch.
abovesaid cheque amounting to Rs. 1,25,525/- (Rupees One Lacs
Twenty Five Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Five only) within 15 days
Exhibit ‘C’ from the receipt of the notice. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit ‘C’
is the xerox copy of the Advocate’s notice dated 25/02/2011.
4. The Complainant states that the notice was sent by Regd. A.D. &
U.P.C. to the Accused at the address of the Accused with proper and
necessary charges paid to the concerned services and Complainant has
not received any acknowledgment from the Accused till the filing of the
complaint, however Accused has given his reply through his Advocate’s
letter dated 05/03/2011 and denied all the contentions of the
Exhibit ‘D’ Complainant. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit ‘D’ is the copy of
Exhibit ‘E’ postal receipts. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit ‘E’ is the copy of
Advocate’s letter/reply dated 05/03/2011.
no amount in the account of the accused, he has issued the abovesaid
cheques, which was dishonoured and returned uncashed, therefore, the
accused has committed an offence punishable u/s. 138 of Negotiable
Instruments as amended upto date r/w. section 142 of the said Act. Not
only that the above cheque was issued by the Accused with clear cut
intention to cheat the Complainant, otherwise knowing fully well that
accused has no amount in his account, the accused would not have
issued the said cheque in favour of the Complainant, therefore, the
commission of the abovesaid act will fully on the part of the accused is
nothing but an offence punishable u/s. 138 of the said act and the
accused is liable to be punished accordingly.
therefore, this Hon’ble Court is got ample power and jurisdiction to try
and entertain the present complaint.
This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue the necessary process u/s. 138 &
142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 against the accused
And for this act of kindness the Complainant is in duty bound and
shall ever pray.

On this 30th day of March, 2011 ]
COMPLAINANT.
BEFORE ME.
8. Cheque of Rs. 1,25,525/-
11. Postal Receipts
C.C. No. 2011
V/S.
MR. SHIVSHANKAR RAMLAL GUPTA ....ACCUSED.
INDEX
1. Roznama :I - IV
2. Complaint :1-4
3. Vakalatnama :5
4. Exhibit ‘A’ : Xerox copy of cheque :6
5. Exhibit ‘B’ : Xerox copy of Bank return Memo :7
6. Exhibit ‘C’ : Xerox copy of the Advocate’s
notice dated 25-02-2011 :8-9
7. Exhibit ‘D’ Xerox copy of Postal receipt : 10
8. Exhibit ‘E’ : Xerox copy of the Accused
Advocate’s reply dated 05-03-2011 :11 - 12
Last page…….
IN THE COURT OF LD.
C.C. No. 2011
KAMDHENU CO-OP. CREDIT
SOCIETY LTD., ..COMPLAINANT.
V/S.
MR. SHIVSHANKAR RAMLAL

GUPTA ...ACCUSED
COMPLAINT
Dated this 31st day of March, 2011
----------------------------------------------
RAHUL I. TIWARI
Mumbai – 400 097.
From:- Arun Kumaar Gupta

----------------------------------
Date- 21st day of Seep. 2007.

TO,
The Sr. Inspector of Police
Jogeshwari Police Station
Jogeshwari (Eaast),
Mumbaai.
Sir,
SUB- Complaint against Premchand --------- who have

cheated me for the
I the complainant above named beg to state following few lines for
your kind perusal and necessary action as under.
I say that I am a peace loving and law abiding citizen of India and
domiciled in the state of Maharashtra at the above address together with
his family members .I am earning on business in the city of greater
Mumbai for the Bread and Butter of my family Members.
1)
I say that on 24 december 2000 the opponent abovenamed approach to

me and requested to arrange some finance and agreed to mortgage his shop
premises situated at SHOP NO.-3 Adarsh dairy form Viswananak CO.OP
HSG. SOCIETY LTD. at gurunanak ANDHERI E.
I say that considering my request as he was known to me. I

agreed to pay Rs. 7 lacks and the agreement to mortgage was
came to be executed between myself and accused and
accordingly Rs. 7 lacks was paid to the accused in pursuance
of mortgage on 24 DECEMBER 2000
I say that it was between me and accused the accused repay the
loan amount on or before 25 DEC. 2001 and in view of he has
given three post dated cheques to me Bearing NO. 021856,
021857, 021858. drawn on MODEL CO. OP. BANG LTD.
CHAKALA.
I say that however on 15 day of AUGUST 2001 the accused

above named approach to me and requested me to purchased
the mortgage shop for Rs.12 Lacks and ultimately 7 DAY of
AUGUST 2001 I purchased the above said premises and the
accused executed all the relevant documents for the valid
transfer of the above said shop premises in my name HERETO
annexed and marked exhibit A colly Xerox copy of the
documents 2 AUGUST 2001 and subsequent thereto. I say that
it is pertinent to note that after handing over the possession to
me , the accused above named with dishonest intention started
to demand the shop premises and on 25 AUGUST 2001 the
accused together with 3/ 4 unknown person forcibly entered in
to the shop premises and threatened to vacate the shop
premises leaving no any alternative but to approach CITY
CIVIL COURT BOMBAY and filed s. c. suit 4576-
2001against the accused and for urgent relief I moved the
Metropolitan court and court granted injunction order against
accused HERETO annexed and marked exhibit C is the copy
of orders passed therein.
I say that thereafter the accused above named came together
with some respectable personalities of the localities as well as
community and relatives and they all hypnotized me and
obtained repossession of the above said shop premises on
assurances that I will get back your Rs. 12 Lacks and putting
the date of 7/ 2/2002 for Rs. 3 lacks and two each dated
cheques on 11/2/2002.
I say that again I have deposited in the account same became

dishonored and after due notice I have filed complaint u/ N. I.
A. before Andheri court.
I say that thereafter again the above said accused who have
come on- again approached to me and hypnotized me and
obtained my consent to withdraw the proceeding initiated by
me on assurances and accused said I shall pay Rs. 35 thousand
per year to me till 2008 and on or before the accused shall
pay loan Rs. 12 lacks..
I say that the said cheques of Rs. 35 thousand bearing no.

37863 dated 9/8/07 issued by accused the said cheques became
dishonored and after became dishonored the said cheques I
have given notice to the accused 0n 13/ 8/2007 but he has not
given any response .I say that the accused has cheated me
under undue influence and after that I have lodged complaint
before JOGESHWARI police station on 1/9/2007
I say that my complaint did not considered which was

complaint by me .
I therefore request to you please take stern action against

the cheated person who has cheated me and accept my
complaint and consider the above circumstances.
DATED- YOURS TRULY
ARUN KUMAR GUPTA

I/am/We/are/not a members of the welfare fund. Therefore stamp of Rs. 2/- is/are/not
affixed herewith N.B. : Strike out which is not Applicable.
COURT AT ANDHERI, MUMBAI
Case No. 2007
MR. ARUN KUMAR SHITLAPRASAD GUPTA ]

aged about years, Hindu adult, Occ. – Business, ]
Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai, residing at Unnati, ]
101, Hardevi Co-operative Housing Society, Near ]
Jain Temple, Caves Road, Jogeshwari (East), Opp. ]
Tahira Compound, Mumbai – 400 060 ] COMPLAINANT.
V/S.
MR. PREMCHANDRA SHARDAPRASAD DUBEY ]
an adult, Occ- Business, Hindu adult, Indian ]
Inhabitant of Mumbai, residing at Sealand Tower, ]
Co-operative Housing Society, ‘C’ Wing, Flat No. ]
703/704, Sector F-2, Jaisal Park, Bhyander (East), ]
Thane ] ..ACCUSED.
I, ARUNKUMAR SHITLAPRASAD GUPTA, the Complainant, do

hereby appoint K.R. TIWARI & CO. Advocate High Court, Bombay to act,
appear and plead for me in the above matter.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set and subscribed my hands to this

writing on dated this 10th day of September, 2007
Accepted
K.R. TIWARI & CO. Signature of Complainant

Case No. 2007
MR. ARUN KUMAR SHITLAPRASAD GUPTA ]
aged about years, Hindu adult, Occ. – Business, ]
Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai, residing at Unnati, ]
101, Hardevi Co-operative Housing Society, Near ]
Jain Temple, Caves Road, Jogeshwari (East), Opp. ]
Tahira Compound, Mumbai – 400 060 ]COMPLAINANT.
V/S.
MR. PREMCHANDRA SHARDAPRASAD DUBEY ]

Inhabitant of Mumbai, residing at Sealand Tower, ]
Co-operative Housing Society, ‘C’ Wing, Flat No. ]
703/704, Sector F-2, Jaisal Park, Bhyander (East), ]
Thane ] ..ACCUSED.
1. The Complainant states that in repayment of the dues of
Complainant, the accused has issued a cheque bearing No. 037863
dated 01/08/2007 drawn on Model Co-op. Bank Ltd, Andheri (East),
due and payable by the Accused to the Complainant.
the Complainant. The Complainant states that when the said cheque was
deposited by the Complainant for encashment to his Bankers, but he
was shocked and surprised to see that the aforesaid cheque was return
dishonoured with Bank Memo with endorsment “ACCOUNT
CLOSED” on 01.08.2007 and returned to the Complainant unpaid by
Exhibit ‘A’returned Bank memo. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit ‘A’ is the
Xerox copy of cheque bearing No. 037863 dated 01/08/2007 and
Exhibit ‘B’ Exhibit ‘B’ is the copy of returned Bank Memo dated 01/08/2007.
abovesaid cheque amounting to Rs. 35,000/- (Thirty Five Thousand
only) within 15 days from the receipt of the notice, failing which the
Complainant will have no option except to initiate proceeding u/s. 138
of the Negotiable Instrument Act as amended upto date r/w. Section
Exhibit ‘C’ 142 of the said Act. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit ‘C’ is the copy
of the said Notice dated 13/08/2007. The Complainant states that the
abovesaid demand notice was sent by the Complainant to the
Exhibit ‘D’ Accused by Regd. Post A.D. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit ‘D’ is
the copy of postal receipts.
no amount in the account of the accused and the bank has closed the
said account, he has issued the abovesaid cheques, which was
dishonoured and returned uncashed, therefore, the accused has
committed an offence punishable u/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments as
amended upto date r/w. section 142 of the said Act. Not only that the
above cheque was issued by the Accused with clear cut intention to
cheat the Complainant, otherwise knowing fully well that accused has
no amount in his account, the accused would not have issued the said
cheque in favour of the Complainant, therefore, the commission of the
abovesaid act will fully on the part of the accused is nothing but an
offence punishable u/s. 138 of the said act and the accused is liable to be
punished accordingly.
therefore, this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the
present complaint.
“Your Worship may be pleased to issued the necessary process u/s. 138
& 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 against the accused
And for this act of kindness the complainant is in duty bound and
shall ever pray.

On this 10th day of September, 2007. ]
[ARUN KUMAR S. GUPTA]
COMPLAINANT.
BEFORE ME.
14. Cheque of Rs. 35,000/-
17. Postal Receipts


COURT AT ANDHERI, MUMBAI,
Case No. 2007
MR. ARUNKUMAR SHITLAPRASAD GUPTA ..COMPLAINANT.

V/S.
MR. PREMCHANDRA SHARDAPRASAD DUBEY ....ACCUSED.
INDEX
1. Roznama :
2. Complaint :
3. Vakalatnama :
4. Exhibit ‘A’ : Xerox copy of cheque.
5. Exhibit ‘B’ : Xerox copy of Bank return Memo :
6. Exhibit ‘C’ : Xerox copy of the notice dated :
13-07-2007. :
7. Exhibit ‘D’ Xerox copy of Post receipt :
Last page…….
IN THE COURT OF LD.
Case NO. 2007
ARUNKUMAR SHITLAPRASAD
GUPTA ..COMPLAINANT.
V/S.
PREMCHANDRA SHARDAPRASAD
UBEY ....ACCUSED.
COMPLAINT
Dated this 10th day of September 2007
----------------------------------------------
K.R TIWARI & CO,

Mumbai – 400 097.
C. C. NO. 2007
MR. SUDARSHAN R. SHARMA, ]

aged about years, Occ- Business, ]
Hindu adult, Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai, ]
Residing at Conditions Compound, Navagaon Road,]
Dahisar (East), Mumbai ]COMPLAINANT.
V/S.
MR. HIMMATLAL PARMAR ]
Inhabitant of Mumbai, carrying on business & ]
residing at Anmol Novelties, Shop No. 12/13, ]
Sector No. 10/B-27, Shanti Nagar, Mira Road, ]
(East), Thane – 401 107 and permanent resident ]
of Sadni, Dist – Pali, State of Rajasthan ] ..ACCUSED.

I, the complainant above named do hereby state on solemn

affirmation as under:-
1. I say that I am residing at above mentioned address along with

my family members. I say that I know the accused since last several
years as he is residing at the address mentioned in the cause title of the
present complaint and accused was having friendly relation with me.
2. I say that the abovesaid Accused has taken loan of Rs. 40,000/- as and
by way of friend loan and in discharge of his legal liability of payment of Rs.
40,000/- which was advanced by him, the Accused issued a cheque bearing
No. 293189, Canara Bank, Mira Road, Branch, dated 15/05/2007. Hereto
annexed and marked Exhibit ‘A’ is the Xerox copy of cheque bearing cheque
No. 293189, dated 15/05/2007.
3. I say that I had presented the above referred cheque in my bank i.e
CITY CO-OP. BANK LTD, Dahisar Branch, Mumbai but the same was
returned unpaid with the cheques return Memo dated 16.05.2007 with an
endorsement “ACCOUNT BLOCKED” which clearly shows that the accused
never had the intention of clearing his liability of dishonoured above referred
cheques. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit ‘B’ is the Xerox copy of the
cheques return memo of the Canara Bank, Mira Road, Thane (E), dated 16-05-
2007.
4. I say that thereafter I had given statutory notice to the accused vide my
Advocate’s letter dated 07-07-2007 which was posted on 09-07-2007 and
called upon the accused to pay the above referred cheque amount i.e Rs.
40,000/- (Rupees Fourty Thousand Only) within the stipulated period of 15
days. I say that the said notice was sent to the accused by Courier. Hereto
annexed and marked Exhibit ‘C’ is the Xerox copies of the notice dated 07-
07-2007.
5. I say that the notice which was sent by courier dated 09.07.2007
to the accused at the address of the accused with proper and necessary
charges paid to the Courier services and the presumption is that the
same has been duly received by the accused. Hereto annexed and
marked Exhibit ‘D’ is the Xerox copy of courier dated 09-07-2007.
6. I say that in spite of an opportunity given to the accused to pay

above referred cheques amount of sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Fourty
Thousand Only) the accused has failed to pay the above referred
cheques amount and the accused did not send any reply to the statutory
notice of my Advocate dated 07-07-2007 for the reasons best known to
him.
7. I say that it seems to me that at the time of issuance of the above

referred cheques, the accused had a clear intention to cheat me and
therefore the accused issued the checque of his banker while the
accused had blocked the account with his banker and therefore the
accused is liable for the offence punishable u/s. 138/ r/w 142 of
Negotiable Instrument Act.
8. I say that the above referred cheques as Exhibit ‘A’ was presented
within stipulated period and the statutory notice was sent within
stipulated time therefore the Complainant is approaching to this
Hon’ble Court therefore the present complaint is filed within the time.
9. I say that above referred cheque at Exhibit ‘A’ was presented in
the City Co-op. Bank Ltd., Dahisar (East), Mumbai and the
Complainant is also residing at Dahisar (East), that the bank and
residence of the complainant both are situated in the jurisdiction of
Dahisar (East) Police Station therefore, this Hon’ble Court is got ample
power and jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.
10. Hence, I am filing this complaint against the accused for having
committing offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and
pray that process be issued against the accused at the first instance and
he be dealt with according to law.
shall ever pray.
Place : Mumbai.
Date : 10th day of September, 2007.
Advocate for Complainant [SUDARSHAN R. SHARMA]

COMPLAINANT.

20. Exhibit ‘A’ to ‘D’ Collectively of the present complaint
21. Branch Manager/Representative of the CITY CO-OP BANK
LTD, Dahisar (East).
22. Branch Manager / Representative of the CANARA BANK, Mira
Road, (East).

On this 10th day of September, 2007. ]
[SUDARSHAN R. SHARMA]
COMPLAINANT.
BEFORE ME.

43rd COURT AT BORIVALI, MUMBAI,
C. C. NO. /SS /2007
MR. SUDARSHAN R. SHARMA, .COMPLAINANT.

V/S.
MR. HIMMATLAL PARMAR ....ACCUSED.
INDEX
7. Complaint
8. Vakalatnama
9. Exhibit ‘A’ : Xerox copy of
cheque dated 15-05-2007.
10. Exhibit ‘B’ : Xerox copy of
Bank return Memo dated 16-05-2007.
11. Exhibit ‘C’-Colly. : Xerox copies of
the notice dated 07-07-2007 and reciepts.
6. Exhibit ‘D’: Xerox copy of
postal acknowledgement of R.P.A.D.
Last page…….
COMPLAINANT.
IN THE COURT OF LD.

C. C. NO. / /2007
MR. SUDARSHAN R. SHARMA,

…COMPLAINANT.
V/S.
MR. HIMMATLAL PARMAR
....ACCUSED.
COMPLAINT
Dated this 10th day of September 2007
----------------------------------------------
K.R TIWARI & CO,

Mumbai – 400 097.
CASE NO: /S/2004.
VERIFICATION STATEMENT.
Complainant on S.A.
NAME: SAVITA RAJENDRA MOHITE, aged about years, Occupation:
House wife, Residing at Malad (East), Mumbai.
I am the Complainant and I, have filed this complaint against
the Accused. The accused had issued the Cheque towards the
discharge of liability in full and which is dishonoured. The
details is as given below:-
1. (a) Cheque No. : 005433
(b) Cheque Date : 1-1-2004
(c) Cheque Amount : 20,000/-
(d) Name of Drawer’s Bank : THE R.S. CO-
OP. BANK LTD.,
2.(a) Date of presentation of Cheque : 3-1-2004
(b) Name of the Drawee’s Bank : ABHYUDAYA CO-
OP.BANK LTD.,
3. Date of receiving intimation from : 6-1-2004
bank about bouncing of Cheque and : “PAYMENT
bank remark : STOPPED BY THE
DRAWER”
4. (a) Date of Notice to the Drawer : 24-1-2004

demanding money under the Cheque :
(b) Mode of Service of Notice : R.P.A.D & U.P.C.
5. Date of service of Notice to the : 27-1-2004
Drawer with documentary proof :
6. Date of receipt of reply if any : --
from the Drawer :
7. Date of filing the Complaint in : 26-2-2004
the Court :
….2/-
- 2 -
I, rely upon the relevant facts as mentioned in the

Complaint. The accused has committed an offence punishable U/Sec.
138 of the N.I. Act.
Hence, I, have filed this complaint
COMPLAINANT.
BEFORE ME,
ADDL. C.M.M., 24TH COURT,

Date
O R D E R
Heard, Perused the complaint and Verification Statement of

the complainant. At prima facie case is made out.
Issue process for the Offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I. Act,

returnable on . . . . . . . . . . .
ADDL. C.M.M. 24TH COURT,

Date.
IN THE COURT OF LD. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATES’S
COURT AT BELLARD PIER, MUMBAI
C.C. NO. /SS/2006
M/S. TRANSOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. ]

A company registered under Companies ]
Act, 1956 having head office at 11098 –B, (East) ]
Park Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110005 and ]
Regional office at Transolutions Centre, 67/69, ]
Sterling Chambers, Pune Street Masjid, ]
Mumbai – 400 000 through its constituted attorney ]
MR. DILIP LOCHAN MISHRA ] …
Complainant
V/S.
M/S. JAYANT BROTHERS & ENGINEERING ]
CO. PVT LTD. ]
Having office at 105, East West Industrial ]
Cantre Safed Pool, Kurla – Andheri Road, ]
Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400 072 ] … ACCUSED
APPLICATION FOR
CONDONATION OF DELAY
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR WORKSHIP:-
I, the Complainant abovenamed beg to state as under:-
I say that the Complainant is having his office at Delhi, as

mentioned in the cause title of the complaint and therefore the Power of
Attorney sent by the office to me could not reached to Mumbai in time.
Hence filing of the complaint before this Hon’ble Court is delayed for
two days,
In the circumstances this Hon’ble Court be pleased to condone

the delay otherwise I shall suffer loss, harm, injury, prejudice which can
not be compensated in terms of money.
And for which act of you kindness, the Complainant is in duty

bound to ever pray.
Place – Mumbai
Date - .07.2006
Complainant
Identified by me

C.C. NO. /SS/2006
M/S. TRANSOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. ]

A company registered under Companies ]
Act, 1956 having office at 11098 –B, (East) ]
Park Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110005 and ]
Regional office at Transolutions Centre, 67/69, ]
Sterling Chambers, Pune Street Masjid, ]
Mumbai – 400 000 through its constituted attorney ]
MR. DILIP LOCHAN MISHRA ] …
Complainant
V/S.
M/S. JAYANT BROTHERS & ENGINEERING ]
CO. PVT LTD. ]
Having office at 105, East West Industrial ]
Cantre Safed Pool, Kurla – Andheri Road, ]
Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400 072 ] … ACCUSED
CHARGE UNDER SECTION 138

R/W. 141 OF NEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENT ACT, 1881 (As
amended till date).

I, MR. DILIP LOCHAN MISHRA, Regional Manager of M/S.
TRANSOLUTIONS PVT. LTD do hereby state on solemn affirmation
as under:-
1. I am working with M/S. TRANSOLUTIONS PVT. LTD since
last several years as regional manager. I say that I know the
abovenamed accused as he is one of the customer of M/S.
TRANSOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.
2. I say that on the oral order of the accused abovenamed our

company send goods to the accused and the said good were duly
received and acknowledged by the accused on dated 11.01.2006.
3. I say that on the repeated demands for the payment against the
goods supplied to the accused, the accused passed and/or issued three
cheques as follows:-
Cheques No. Date Amount Drawn on
(1) 000218 6.2.2006 1,05,718/- The Saraswat Co-op.
Bank Ltd.
(2) 000219 6.2.2006 1,07,175/- The Saraswat Co-op.
Bank Ltd.
(3) 032133 17.2.2006 71,354/- The Saraswat Co-op.
Bank Ltd.
The said cheques were issued by the accused in order to discharge their
Exhibit ‘A’ liabilities towards the complaint. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit
‘A’ collectively are the Xerox copies of the cheques above mentioned.
4. I say that the cheques were presented for encashment on

10.05.2006 through their bankers i.e. ICICI Bank to the bankers of the
accused i.e. Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd, Urvashi, Opp. Ravindra
Natya Mandir, Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025.
5. I say that I was shocked and surprised when on enquiry I came to

know that all the three cheques have been dishonoured. I further say
that the said cheques with the memos of the accused bank dated
11.05.2006 showing remarks “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT”. I say that our
bankers also given us their memos dated 11.05.2006. Hereto annexed
and marked
Exhibit ‘B’ Exhibit ‘B’ Collectively are the Xerox copies of memos.
6. I say that after getting the dishonoured cheques and memos I informed the
accused abovenamed in respect thereof, as there was no satisfactory reply from the
accused and therefore a statutory notice dated 27.05.2006 through the advocate was
sent to the accused (Date on the notice is not mentioned, however the postal receipt
shows it clearly that same is dispatched on 27.05.2006). I say that the copy of the
said notice was sent by R.P.A.D and a copy of thereof was sent by U.P.C. Hereto
Exhibit ‘C’ annexed and marked Exhibit ‘C’ collectively are the Xerox copies of said
notice and postal receipts.
7. I say that in the said notice I demanded the cheques amount to be

paid to the complainant within 15 days from the receipt thereof. I
further say that the said demand notice was clearly received and
acknowledged by the accused on 29.05.2006, however the accused
neither paid the dues i.e. cheques amount nor he replied the same.
8. I say that the facts and circumstances as set out hereinabove it is

apparent that the Accused have committed an offence U/S. 138 of the
Negotiable Act 1981 and are liable to be punished for the said offence
committed by them. I say that the Complainants are carrying on their
business having their office situated at within the jurisdiction of this
Hon’ble Court and hence this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain
to entertain and try complaint.
9. In the circumstances I pray that this Hon’ble Court may please to

issued process against the Accused for the offence punishable under
section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1981 as amended and
further to deal with the accused according to law. It is further prayed
that on recording conviction of the accused persons and on realization
of penalty of fine from them the majority part of the same be ordered to
be given to the Complainant as compensation.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE COMPLAINANT SHALL

REMAIN IN DUTY BOUND FOR EVER PRAY.
Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai ]

On this day of July, 2006 ]
Complainant
Identified by me.
Before me
Advocate for Complainants.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS/ WITNESSES:-
1. Xerox copies of the cheques.

2. Xerox copies of the memos.
3. Xerox copies of said notice and postal receipts.
4. Any other and further documents/ witnesses with the
permission of this Hon’ble Court.
Advocate for the Complainant

C.C. NO. /SS/2006
M/S. TRANSOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. … COMPLAINANT

V/S.
M/S. JAYANT BROTHERS & ENGINEERING
CO. PVT LTD. …. ACCUSED
INDEX
Sr. No. Particulars Page

Nos.
1. Complaint
2. Exhibit ‘A’ collectively are the Xerox copies of the

cheques above mentioned.
3. Exhibit ‘B’ Collectively are the Xerox copies of
memos.
4. Exhibit ‘C’ collectively are the Xerox copies of
said notice and postal receipts.
5. Vakalatnama
Last Page …..
Advocates for the Complainant COMPLAINANT

IN THE COURT OF LD.
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATES’S
COURT AT BELLARD PIER,
MUMBAI
C.C. NO. /SS/2006
M/S. TRANSOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.

… COMPLAINANT
V/S.
M/S. JAYANT BROTHERS &
ENGINEERING CO. PVT LTD.
….
ACCUSED
COMPLAINT
DATED THIS DAY OF JULY, 2006
K.R. TIWARI & CO.

Advocate for the Complainant
Plot No. 26-A, Hawa Hira Park,
Mumbai – 400 097
C. C. NO. /SS /2006
M/S. YASH DEVELOPERS ]

A company registered under Companies Act, 1956 ]
Having registered office at 101/3, Kedia Chembers,]
S.V. Road, Malad (West), Mumbai- 400 064 ]
Through its Director MR. BASANT SATPATHY ]
an adult, Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai ]
…..COMPLAINANT.
V/S.
MR. DHEERAJ KUMAR CHAURISIYA, ]
an adult, Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai, ]
Residing at EC 62,’A’ Wing, 303/4, Mangal ]
Vandan Co-op. Hsg. Society, Evershine, City, ]
Vasai (East), Thane. ]
..ACCUSED.
COMPLAINT U/S. 138 OF

NEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENT ACT, 1881. (As
amended till date)
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR WORSHIP:

1. I say that I am Partner of M/s. Yash Developers and acting as
Director therein having office address as stated herein above. I say that I
know the accused abovenamed for last several years as he is residing at
the aforesaid address and was good terms with us.
2. I say that accused have taken sum of Rs. 1,26,100/- (One Lakh
Twenty Six Thousand One Hundred only) from me for getting the
housing loan sanctioned to our customers, however, accused did not do
the satisfactory job and therefore I demanded the money back. The
accused for one pretext to another sought time to repay the aforesaid
amount and ultimately he issued a cheque to me being the part payment.
Cheques No. Date Amount Drawn on
225457 27.11.2005 16,355/- Vasai Janata
Sahakari Bank
Ltd.
The abovesaid cheque was given by accused in discharge of his
liabilities towards us with the assurances that the same will be honoured
as and when
Exhibit ‘A presented. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit ‘A’ is the Xerox copy of
the said cheques of dated.
3- I say that accordingly on date I presented the said

cheques for encashment through my bankers to the bankers of the
accused, however the said cheques was returned unpaid with the memo
dated 27/04/2006 of the accused’s bank with remark “FUNDS
INSUFFICIENT”.
Exhibit ‘B’ Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit ‘B’ is the Xerox copy of the said
memo dated 27/04/2006 of the accused’s Bank, Vasai Janta Sahkari
Bank Ltd
4- I say that I received the said return cheques with the memo of the
accused’s bank on 29.04.2006 and immediately I intimated the same to
the accused in respect thereof.
5- I say that thereafter I given a statutory notice dated 27.05.2006

through my advocate to the accused and called upon him to pray the
said cheques amount i.e. Rs. 16,355/- within fifteen days from the
receipt thereof. I say that a copy of the said notice was send by R.P.A.D
and a copy
Exhibit ‘C’ thereof was send by U.P.C. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit ‘C’
collectively is the Xerox copy of the said notice and the postal receipt.
6. I say that the notice send by R.P.AD. was duly served upon him
on
Exhibit ‘D’31.05.2006. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit ‘D’ is the postal
acknowledgment duly signed with date by the accused. I say that though
the accused was duly served the demand notice, however he will fully
and deliberately failed and neglected to pay the said cheques amount in
as much as he is also failed and neglected to reply the same.
7. I say that though the accused was liable to discharge his liability
by getting the said cheques cleared. However the accused dishonestly,
not
having sufficient credit in his bank account, issued the said cheques in
order to deceive me and cheat me, having knowledge that he does not
have these much amount in his credit.
8. I say that in the fashion aforesaid the accused has committed an

offence rendering himself liable for the punishment under section 138
of Negotiable Instrument Act as amended upto date.
9. I am therefore filing this complaint before this Hon’ble Court

and paying that the process may kindly be issued against the accused
abovenamed and he be treated according to law.
10. That my bank is situated at Malad, Mumbai & therefore this

Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain & try this complaint.
11. That the Complaint is filed well within time, it is therefore prayed
that the process may kindly be issued against the accused.
And for this act of kindness the complainant abovenamed as duty

bound and shall ever pray.
Place : Mumbai.
Date : day of July, 2006. [YASH DEVELOPERS]
COMPLAINANT.

On this day of July, 2006.]
[YASH DEVELOPERS]
COMPLAINANT.
BEFORE ME.
Explained, Interpreted and Identified by me.
1. Copy of the said cheques of dated .
2. Copy of the said memo dated 27/04/2006 of the accused’s Bank,

Vasai Janta Sahkari Bank Ltd.
3. Copy of the said notice and the postal receipt.
4- Copy of the postal acknowledgment duly signed with date by the

accused.
5- Any other and further documents/witnesses with the permission


C. C. NO. /SS /2006
M/S. YASH DEVELOPERS

…..COMPLAINANT.
V/S.
MR. DHEERAJ KUMAR CHAURISIYA ....ACCUSED.
INDEX

Nos.
12. Complaint
2. Exhibit ‘A’ is the Xerox copy of the said cheques of

dated .
3. Exhibit ‘B’ is the Xerox copy of the said memo dated

27/04/2006 of the accused’s Bank, Vasai Janta Sahkari
Bank Ltd.
4- Exhibit ‘C’ collectively is the Xerox copy of the said

notice and the postal receipt.
5- Exhibit ‘D’ is the postal acknowledgment duly signed

with date by the accused.
6- Vakalatnama
Last
page…….
Advocate for the Complainant COMPLAINANT.
IN THE COURT OF LD.

43rd COURT AT BORIVALI,
MUMBAI
C. C. NO. /SS /2006
M/S. YASH DEVELOPERS

.COMPLAINA
NT.
V/S.
MR. DHEERAJ KUMAR
CHAURISIYA
…..ACCUSED.
COMPLAINT
Dated this day of July, 2006
---------------------------------------------------
M/S. K.J. TIWARI
M.J. Phule Nagar, Hawa Hira
Park,
Mumbai – 400 097.

C. C. NO. /SS /2006
MR. VINOD KUMAR SINGH, ]

Residing at Room No.5, Ram Pher Yadav Chawl, ]
Singh Estate, Kandivali (East), Mumbai – 400 101 ]
..COMPLAINANT.
V/S.
MR. SANTOSH KUMAR RAM LAL VERMA ]
residing at Durga Mata Chawl, Kranti ]
Nagar, Near Vikas Medical, Kandivali (East), ]
Mumbai – 400 101 ]
..ACCUSED.
COMPLAINT U/S. 138 OF

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR WORSHIP:

1. I say that I am residing at above mentioned address along with

my family members. I say that I know the accused since last several
years .as he is residing at the address mentioned in the cause title of the
present complaint and accused was having friendly relation with me.
2. I say that accused on 11.9.2004 approached to me and told that if
I will not help him then he will be on the road and his business will be
ruined and requested for friendly loan of Rs. 95,000/- (Rupees Ninety
Five Thousand only) for his business. I say that looking to the need of
accused and being known to him, I had advanced friendly loan of sum
of Rs. 95,000/- (Rupees Ninety Five Thousand only) to the accused on
12-9-2004 and at the time of taking the loan accused had issued receipt
acknowledging the receipt of amount. I crave leave to refer to and rely
upon the above receipt as and when necessary. I say that as per the
receipt when the accused could not pay the loan amount to me then in
discharge of abovesaid liability and terms of repayment of loan amount
the accused had signed and issued a cheques in my favour from his
account bearing cheques No. 971950, dated 3.12.2005 of sum of Rs.
95,000/- (Rupees Ninety Five Thousand only) drawn on ABN-AMRO
Bank , hereto annexed and marked Annexure –A is the Xerox copy of
cheque.
3. I say that I had presented the above referred cheque in my bank

i.e PRATAP CO-OP. BANK, Kandivali Branch, Mumbai – 400 101 but
the same was returned unpaid with the cheques return Memo dated
05.12.2005 with an endorsement “ACCOUNT CLOSED BY THE
DRAWER” which clearly shows that the accused never had the
intention of clearing his liability of dishonoured above referred cheques.
Hereto annexed and marked Annexure ‘B’ is the Xerox copy of the
cheques return memo of the Pratap Co-op. Bank, Kandivali (E),
Mumbai – 400 101 dated 05-12-2005.
4. I say that thereafter I had given statutory notice to the accused
vide my Advocate’s letter dated 17-12-2005 which was posted on 20-
12-2005 and called upon the accused to pay the above referred cheque
amount i.e Rs. 95,000,/- (Rupees Ninty Five Thousand Only) within the
stipulated period of 15 days. I say that the said notice was sent to the
accused by R.P.A.D. and U.P.C. Hereto annexed and marked Annexure
‘C’-Colly. are the Xerox copies of the notice dated 17-12-2005 and the
receipts of postal correspondences.
5. I say that the notice which was sent by R.P.A.D. to the accused
No.1 was received by him (the date is not mentioned on the
acknowledgement) and the notice sent to the accused by U.P.C. has
been served upon the accused as till to date the postal authorities have
not returned the same unserved, Hereto annexed and marked Annexure
‘D’ is the copy of postal acknoledgment.
6. I say that in spite of an opportunity given to the accused to pay

above referred cheques amount of sum of Rs. 95,000/- (Rupees Ninty
Five Thousand Only) the accused has failed to pay the above referred
cheques amount and the accused did not send any reply to the statutory
notice of my Advocate dated 17-12-2005 for the reasons best known to
him..
7. I say that it seems to me that at the time of issuance of the above

referred cheques, the accused had a clear intention to cheat me and
therefore the accused issued the checque of his banker while the
accused had closed the A/c with his banker and therefore the accused is
liable for the offence punishable u/s. 138/ r/w of Negotiable Instrument
Act.
8. I say that the above referred cheques as Annexure ‘A’ was

presented within stipulated period and the statutory notice was sent
within stipulated time and upon the receipt of the acknowledgement the
Complainant is approaching to this Hon’ble Court therefore the present
complaint is filed with in the time.
9. I say that above referred cheque at Annexure ‘A’ was presented in
the Kandivali, Mumbai and the complainant is also residing at
Kandivali (East), that the bank and residence of the complainant both
are situated in the jurisdiction of Kandivali (East) Police Station
therefore, this Hon’ble Court is got ample power and jurisdiction to
entertain and try the present complaint.
10. Hence, I am filing this complaint against the accused for having
committing offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and
pray that process be issued against the accused at the first instance and
he be dealt with according to law.
shall ever pray.
Place : Mumbai.
Date : 21th day of January, 2006.
[VINOD KUMAR
SINGH]
COMPLAINANT.
24. Exhibit ‘A’ to ‘D’ Collectively of the present complaint

25. Branch Manager/Representative of the ABN-AMRO. BANK
LTD.
26. Branch Manager / Representative of the PRATAP CO-OP. BANK
LTD.,
27. Reciept dated 12-9-2004, issued by the accused at the time of
taking loan.
On this 21th day of Jan, 2006. ]
[VINOD KUMAR SINGH]

COMPLAINANT.
BEFORE ME.
Explained, Interpreted and
Identified by me.
M/S. K.R TIWARI & CO,

Mumbai – 400 097.

C. C. NO. /SS /2006
MR. VINOD KUMAR SINGH,

…..COMPLAINANT.
V/S.
MR. SANTOSH KUMAR RAMLAL VERMA, ....ACCUSED.
INDEX

Nos.
13. Complaint
14. Vakalatnama
15. Exhibit ‘A’ : Xerox copy of
cheque dated 3-12-2005.
16. Exhibit ‘B’ : Xerox copy of
Bank return Memo dated 5-12-2005.
17. Exhibit ‘C’-Colly. : Xerox copies of
the notice dated 17-12-2005 and reciepts.
18. Exhibit ‘D’: Xerox copy of
postal acknowledgement of R.P.A.D.
Last
page…….
COMPLAINANT.
IN THE COURT OF LD.

43rd COURT AT BORIVALI,
MUMBAI
C. C. NO. /SS /2006
MR. VINOD KUMAR SINGH,

…….COMPLAINA
NT.
V/S.
MR. SANTOSH KUMAR RAMLAL
VERMA,
………..ACCUSED.
COMPLAINT
Dated this 21st Jan, 2006
M/S. K.R TIWARI & CO,
Mumbai – 400 097.

Complaint To Borivali (Transolutions)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complaint To Borivali (Transolutions)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

I/am/We/are/not a members of the welfare fund. Therefore stamp of Rs.

2/- is/are/not affixed

Arati Vinod Patil & others

We, the above named Prosecution , hereby appoint Mr. ARVIND

me in the above matter.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set and subscribed my hands to

this writing on dated this 12th day of April, 2018

Office Add.: S.P.Road, Near

Dahisar (East) Mumbai 400068

in the above matter.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set and subscribed my hands to

this writing on dated this 12th day of April, 2018

1.Mrs. Prema Joshi

Office Add.: S.P.Road, Near

Dahisar (East) Mumbai 400068

43rd COURT AT BORIVALI, MUMBAI

C.C. No. 2011

KAMDHENU CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., ..COMPLAINANT.

MR. NAKUL YADAV ....ACCUSED.

IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN

MRS. REKHA PAL ………. APPLICANT.

MR.UDAY SHANKAR PAL. & Others

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR:-

It is most respectfully submitted as under that the Complainant is

Accused above named, however Complainant is not in position to pay

very much required to file today itself.

Therefore this Hon’ble Court be pleased to provide time to the

Complainant to pay the Court fee in the abovesaid complaint.

And for which act of kindness Complainant is in duty bound to

Place:- Borivali, Mumbai

Advocate for Complainant

KAMDHENU CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., )

Adarsh Society, Ranisati Marg, Malad (East), )

Mumbai – 400 097 )..ACCUSED.

Authorised Signatory of Complainant, do hereby appoint RAHUL

me in the above matter.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set and subscribed my hands to

this writing on dated this 2nd day of June, 2011

RAHUL TIWARI Signature of Complainant

Advocate High Court, Bombay

Office Add.: Plot No. 26-A,

Hawa Hira Park, Kurar Village,

Malad (East), Mumbai – 400 097

Correspondence No. 28407865

IN THE COURT OF LD. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE’S

43rd COURT AT BORIVALI, MUMBAI

C.C. No. 2011

KAMDHENU CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., )

having registered office at Balmohan Welfare )

Society, Room No. 7, Laxman Nagar, Kurar )

Village, Malad (East), Mumbai – 400 097 )..COMPLAINANT.

MR. NAKUL YADAV )

Adarsh Society, Ranisati Marg, Malad (East), )

COMPLAINT U/S. 138 r/w. 142 OF THE

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT 1881

AS AMENDED UPTO DATE:-

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR WORSHIP:-

THE COMPLAINANT ABOVENAMED STATES AS UNDER:-

Complainant and in repayment of the dues of Complainant, the accused

Thousand One Hundred Fifty only) bearing No. 513842 dated

08/04/2011 drawn on DCB Bank, Versova Branch, Mumbai – 400 061

due and payable by the Accused to the Complainant.

abovesaid cheque in repayment of the dues, due and payable by him to