Full Text
Translation output
r \>j $-6 to 9 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN. 182/2013 & CrLM.A.No.1373/2013
MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL Petitioner
Through : Ms.Smriti Sinha, Advocate with Mr.Shri Singh, Ms.Aakansha Singh &
Ms.Vasundhara N. Advocates.
BAIL APPLN. 182/2013 & CrLM.A.No.1373/2013
MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL Petitioner
Through : Ms.Smriti Sinha, Advocate with Mr.Shri Singh, Ms.Aakansha Singh &
Ms.Vasundhara N. Advocates.
VERSUS
STATE Respondent
Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State.
Mr.Rajiv Dutta, Sr.Advocate for the complainant.
SI Vikas, PS Subhash Place.
Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State.
Mr.Rajiv Dutta, Sr.Advocate for the complainant.
SI Vikas, PS Subhash Place.
BAIL APPLN. 267/2013
NIRMAL KUMAR AGARWAL Petitioner
Through : Ms.Smriti Sinha, Advocate with
NIRMAL KUMAR AGARWAL Petitioner
Through : Ms.Smriti Sinha, Advocate with
VERSUS
BAIL APPLN. 350/2013
MAHESH KUMAR AGARWAL Petitioner
Through : Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Smriti Sinha,
MAHESH KUMAR AGARWAL Petitioner
Through : Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Smriti Sinha,
VERSUS
BAILAPPLN. 182/2013,267/2013,350/2013 & 440/2013 page 1 of3
2013:DHC:6875
2013:DHC:6875
BAIL APPLN. 440/2013 & CrLM.A.No. 3381/2013
RAKESH SHARMA Petitioner
Through: Mr.SudhirNandrajog, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Smriti Sinha,
RAKESH SHARMA Petitioner
Through: Mr.SudhirNandrajog, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Smriti Sinha,
VERSUS
i Through : : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
28.10.2013 Petitioners seek anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 403/2012 under
Sections 420 IPG registered at PS Subhash Place. They were granted interim protection with the directions to join the investigation. The petitioners have joined the investigation since then. With the consent ofthe parties the matter was referred to Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre to
I explore the possibility of amicable settlement. However, the parties could not resolve their differences. Civil Suit being CS (OS) No. 2940/2011 'M/s.
BTM Exports Ltd. vs. M/s. Adhunik Corporation Ltd. \ under Order 37 CPC filed by the complainant is pending before this Court. The petitioners have admitted payment of f 1.40 crore towards part payment for services made by the complainant.
During the course of hearing, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners on instructions volunteered to deposit 50% ofthe said amount
28.10.2013 Petitioners seek anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 403/2012 under
Sections 420 IPG registered at PS Subhash Place. They were granted interim protection with the directions to join the investigation. The petitioners have joined the investigation since then. With the consent ofthe parties the matter was referred to Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre to
I explore the possibility of amicable settlement. However, the parties could not resolve their differences. Civil Suit being CS (OS) No. 2940/2011 'M/s.
BTM Exports Ltd. vs. M/s. Adhunik Corporation Ltd. \ under Order 37 CPC filed by the complainant is pending before this Court. The petitioners have admitted payment of f 1.40 crore towards part payment for services made by the complainant.
During the course of hearing, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners on instructions volunteered to deposit 50% ofthe said amount
BAIL APPLN. 182/2013,267/2013,350/2013 & 440/2013 page2 of3
V with the Court subject to outcome ofthe Civil Suit without prejudice. The complainant insisted to direct the petitioners to return the entire consideration to the complainant before enlargement on bail. Finally, the petitioners agreed without prejudice to their rights to pay 40% of the said amount to the complainant. The offer was not acceptable to the complainant who asked to enhance this amount.
Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances and to protect the interest of both the parties, the petitioners are directed to pay
50% of the said amount i.e. ? 1.40 crore to the complainant within 15 days through Investigating Officer without prejudice to their rights. This amount shall be subjectto outcome of the Civil Suitpendingbetweenthe parties.
The petitioners are admitted to anticipatory bail and in the event of their arrest, they be released on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of
^ 1 lac, each with one surety, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the SHO/Investigating officer. The petitioners shall however, join the investigation as and when required and shall return 50% ofthe amount to the complainant within 15 days without prejudice and subject to adjustment (if any).
The bail applications stand disposed of
Order dasti. vP.GARG, J« OCTOBER 28,2013/tr
— Uu-xA M ?,-oj/3
V with the Court subject to outcome ofthe Civil Suit without prejudice. The complainant insisted to direct the petitioners to return the entire consideration to the complainant before enlargement on bail. Finally, the petitioners agreed without prejudice to their rights to pay 40% of the said amount to the complainant. The offer was not acceptable to the complainant who asked to enhance this amount.
Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances and to protect the interest of both the parties, the petitioners are directed to pay
50% of the said amount i.e. ? 1.40 crore to the complainant within 15 days through Investigating Officer without prejudice to their rights. This amount shall be subjectto outcome of the Civil Suitpendingbetweenthe parties.
The petitioners are admitted to anticipatory bail and in the event of their arrest, they be released on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of
^ 1 lac, each with one surety, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the SHO/Investigating officer. The petitioners shall however, join the investigation as and when required and shall return 50% ofthe amount to the complainant within 15 days without prejudice and subject to adjustment (if any).
The bail applications stand disposed of
Order dasti. vP.GARG, J« OCTOBER 28,2013/tr
— Uu-xA M ?,-oj/3
BAIL APPLN. 182/2013,267/2013,350/2013 & 440/2013 V
(M $-13 to 16 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAILAPPLN. 182/2013
MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL
Petitioner
(M $-13 to 16 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAILAPPLN. 182/2013
MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL
Petitioner
BAILAPPLN. 267/2013
NIRMAL KUMAR AGARWAL
NIRMAL KUMAR AGARWAL
BAILAPPLN. 350/2013
MAHESH KUMAR AGARWAL
MAHESH KUMAR AGARWAL
BAIL APPLN. 440/2013
RAKESH SHARMA
, Petitioner STATE
RAKESH SHARMA
, Petitioner STATE
VERSUS
Respondent Appearance :Ms.Smriti Sinha withMr.Shri Singh, Ms.Aakanksha Singh and
Mr.Vasundhora Nagrata, Advocates for the petitioners.
Mr.Siddharth Dutta, Advocate for the Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.
Mr.Vasundhora Nagrata, Advocates for the petitioners.
Mr.Siddharth Dutta, Advocate for the Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
18.11.2013 Bail Appl.Nos.182/13, 267/13, 350/13 & 440/13 Page 1 of2
/ Crl.M.A.No.17294/2013 in Bail Appl.No.182/2013
CrI.M.A.No.l 7298/2013 in Bail App1.No.267/2013
Crl.M.A.No.17293/2013 in Bail Appl.No.350/2013 rrl.M.A.No.17297/2013 in Bail App1.No.440/2013
The petitioners seek rectification oftypographical mistake in the order dated 12.11.2013 where the petitioners were directed to pay ?1.40 crore to the complainant instead of 50% ofthe said amount i.e. ^70 lacs.
Necessary correction is made in the order dated 12.11.2013 and the petitioners are directed to pay 50% of ^1.40 crore i.e. ?70 lacs to the complainant within the time prescribed therein. Other terms and conditions ofthe order stand undisturbed.
The applications stand disposed of.
Dasti, as prayed for.
S.KGARG, J.
NOVEMBER 18,2013 sa BailApplNos.182/13, 267/13, 350/13 &440/13 Page2of2
18.11.2013 Bail Appl.Nos.182/13, 267/13, 350/13 & 440/13 Page 1 of2
/ Crl.M.A.No.17294/2013 in Bail Appl.No.182/2013
CrI.M.A.No.l 7298/2013 in Bail App1.No.267/2013
Crl.M.A.No.17293/2013 in Bail Appl.No.350/2013 rrl.M.A.No.17297/2013 in Bail App1.No.440/2013
The petitioners seek rectification oftypographical mistake in the order dated 12.11.2013 where the petitioners were directed to pay ?1.40 crore to the complainant instead of 50% ofthe said amount i.e. ^70 lacs.
Necessary correction is made in the order dated 12.11.2013 and the petitioners are directed to pay 50% of ^1.40 crore i.e. ?70 lacs to the complainant within the time prescribed therein. Other terms and conditions ofthe order stand undisturbed.
The applications stand disposed of.
Dasti, as prayed for.
S.KGARG, J.
NOVEMBER 18,2013 sa BailApplNos.182/13, 267/13, 350/13 &440/13 Page2of2
JUDGMENT