CASE INFORMATION FORMAT Civil

D
Criminal 0
n PLAINTIFF / PETITIONER / COMPLAINANT / APPELLANT / DECREE HOLDER ETC.
PLEASE FILL UP ALL THE RELEVANT FIELDS & Q FIELDS ARE MANDATORY

Annnk lYz&ha
DsUrok-. )s UsmnJe’

NO■ OiOll'IoLoete t,
noJ ^nhcrZioJ^O^jP , 12 P ■
Pin Code O-OlOlH
INDIAN
Female D Other Nationality
Other:

lh i 0-9 i /9« Age ho

e-mail:
3 99099? 32-3
397 OcPC.
Court Fee Ascertained
Court Fee Paid / Deposited

Police Station In Criminal Matters only

F.I.R. No. & Year In Criminal Matters only

S. DEFENDANT / ACCUSED / RESPONDENT JUDGEMENT DEBATER ETC.

No PLEASE FILL UP ALL THE RELEVANT FIELDS & Q FIELDS ARE MANDATORY

1. Name of the
DEFENDANT/ACCUSED ^Onjaxj \JOJrjJnnCL/
Etc.

2. S/o W/o D/o S C. VAfeShne-y

3. Address 9>/0- SH
\~1, /\JCxO Rajdhxmt r^clQVQ , beJ-ht
4. Aadhar Card No. Pin Code
tiooffo
Male Female Other Nationality INDIAN
5. Gender
Other:
6. Date of Birth / Age

7. Mobile No. e-mail:

S.
ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFF / COMPLAINANT / PETITIONER / DECREE HOLDER ETC.
No.
Name of The Advocate

Enrl. No.
Ms. vijay Rarfi (Advocate)
Office / Chamber No. En No. D-1459/07. Delhi High Court
Ch. NoG-711
Mobile No. e-mail: Karknrdooma Co'irt, Delhi -32
M. . t)’Jt'0693223

SUBMITTED BY.............................................................................................
PLAINTIFF / PETITIONER / DEFENDANT / ACCUSED / OTHER / ADVOCATE
 IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE DISTRICT AND SESSION
JUDGE, KARKARDOOMA COURT, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,

DELHI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.___ /2023

IN
CT-183/2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

ANOOP ARORA ....PETITONER/REVISIONIST
VERSUS
SANJAY VARSHNEY ..... RESPONDENT

INDEX
SL NO. PARTICULARS PG. NO. COURT
FEES
1. MEMO OF PARTIES 1
2. CRIMINAL REVISON PETITION
ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT
J. LIST OF DOCUMENTS ALONG
13-QO
WITH DOCUMENTS
1 4. VAKALATNAMA

VIJAY RANI, SANJEF.T PALTWAL & PAYAL PALIWAL

(ADVOCATES)
CH. NO. G-711. KKD COURT COMPLEX. DELHI -38
Mob.: 9990698323
Email : Vijavatyagi71 (<7gmail.eom

PLACE: DELHI
DATED: ^o -001.3
 iv rnr roURT OF HON’BLE DISTRICT AND SESSION
judge! kakkakdooma court, shahdara district,
DELHI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.----- 12023
IN

IN THE MATTER OF:

ANOOP ARORA ....PETITONER/REVISIONIST
VERSUS
SANJAY VARSHNEY ..... RESPONDENT

MEMO OF PARTIES
ANOOP ARORA
C/C ASHOK KUMAR ARORA,
FLAT NO. 01021, TOWER 1, ATS APARTMENT,
1ND1RAPURAM GEIAZIABAD,
U.P. -201014 ....PETITONER/REVISIONIST

VERSUS

SANJAY VARSHNEY
S O. SH. S.C. VARSHNEY
17. NEW RAJDHAN 1 ENCLAVE,
DELHI, 110092 RESPONDENT

PETITIONER

THROUGH COUNSEL

VIJAY RANI. SANJEET PAI.1WAL & PAYAL PALIWAL

(ADVOCATES)
CM.‘NO. G-711. KKI) COURT COMPLEX. DELHI -38

PLACE: DELHI
DATED: Qjo- %■ 7 -0^3
 - w
•--: V*Vlr^7
NCI®J; HI COURT ? 11 1 KV »’H.«« V VI'HI i I

llliilllll] Illi OLOrUrvsU^Ms.^n

t44«OV-aa2< M NOV rlVl>

rh ---- i' Hi I III III llll JI III | j | |J| |,;j | i||. IJII III III Ill|||!l||.|| III mill
01 RT OETTON'BLE DTSTRTC f~ANl) SESSION
JUDGE, KARKARDOQMa COURT, SIIA11DARA DISTRICT,

DELHI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.____/2023
IN
CT-183/2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

ANOOP ARORA ....PETITONER/REVISIONIST
VERSUS
SANJAY VARSHNEY ..... RESPONDENT

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTION 397 OF

Cr.P.C., 1973 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.01.2021 IN
COMPLAINT CASE NO. 183/2020 TITLED AS SANJAY
VARSHNEY V. M/S PEARL HOSPITALITY AND EVENTS PVT,
LTD. AND ORS. PASSED BY PRAYANK NAYAK, LI).
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (NI ACT) DIGITAL COURT.
SHAHDARA/KKD/DELHI ORDERING SERVICE OF SUMMON
AGAINST THE PETITIONER

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the Complainant herein Respondent filed a Complaint Case

No. 183 of 2020 under section 138 r/w section 141 and 142 of
Negotiable Instrument Act against M/s Pearl Hospitality & Events
t •

Pvt. Ltd. as accused no. 1, its Director Mohit Jain as accused no. 2
and aiso included the name ot i aitioner as Accused No. 3 by
alleging him to be authorized signatory of the accused no. 1
company.
 3

0 That as per the Respondent the aforesaid Complaint Case has been
filed due to dishonor of cheque no. 00297 dated 15.07.2020, cheque
no. 00298 dated 15.08.2020 and cheque no. 00299 dated

15.09.2020, of accused no. 1 company, all drawn on ICICI Bank,

each for an amount of Rs. 4,11,350/-, signed by accused no. 2
Mohit Jain.

3. That it is alleged in the Complaint and the legal notice attached with
it that the accused no. 3 herein Petitioner had assured the
Respondent that he is the principal officer and responsible for the
day to day affairs and business of the accused no. 1 company. It is
pertinent to mention here that the Respondent has made the
aforesaid vague and baseless allegation without providing any
prima facie proof or evidence to substantiate his allegation.

4. That in the memo of parties in the complaint the

Respondent/complainant has named the Petitioner as accused no. 3
and designated him as the authorized signatory of the accused no. I
company and the office address of the accused no. 1 company was
shown to be the address of the Petitioner. It is pertinent to mention
here that neither master data of the accused no. 1 company nor any
other documentary proof has been brought on record by the
Respondent/Complainant to substantiate the aforesaid facts and
allegations in the complaint.

5. That on 04.01.2021 the aforesaid complaint case was listed for

hearing through VC before the l.d. Trial Court. After perusing the
Complaint, affidavit of evidence and other annexed documents the
 *1

jd' 1 nal C()url took cognizance of offence u/s 138 N.I. Act against

all the accused persons and issued summoning order.

I hat the order dated 04.01.2021 passed by the Ld. Trial Court is
illegal and the court below has committed an error by passing the

summoning against the Petitioner. A true copy of the impugned

order dated 04.01.2021 is annexed with this Petition as
ANNEXURE P-1

7. That the Petitioner has resigned from the post of the Director of the
accused no. 1 company vide letter dated 29.03.2016. It is pertinent
to mention here that the Board of the accused no. 1 company has
also accepted the resignation and informed the Petitioner vide letter
dated 31.03.2016. It is also pertinent to mention here that the
Registrar of Companies Office at Delhi was also informed about it
by filing of Form No. D1R-11. A true copy of the resignation letter
issued by the Petitioner dated 29.03.2016 is ANNEXURE P-2;
A true copy of the letter of acceptance of resignation of the
Petitioner by the accused no. 1 dated 31.03.2016 is ANNEXURE
P-3;and
A true copy of the Form No. DIR-11 showing notice of resignation
of Petitioner as Director to the ROC Delhi is ANNEXURE P-4

8. That the Ld. Trial Court fails to verily into the master data of the
accused no. 1 company nor any document was provided by the
Respondent through which any association of the Petitioner with
the accused no. 1 company or the cheques in dispute can be proved.
A true copy of the Master data of the accused no. 1 company dated
15.03.2023 is ANNEXURE P-5
(), Thai Iccling aggrieved by llic impugned order dated 04,01,2021

passed by Ms. Prayank Nayak, I d. Metropolitan Magistrate (Nl

Act), Digital C’ourl, District Shalidaru, KKI) Court,s, Ikllii in

Complaint Case No, I S3 of 2020 tilled as SANJAY VA/CSIINi,Y

VS. M/S PKAUI IIOSIMTAUTY AND HVCNTS rKIVATIi

I.IM1 I I I). the Petitioner is preferring die present criminal revision
petition for setting aside the interim order of issuance of summons
against the accused no. I herein Petitioner on the following
grounds:

(.ROUNDS

A. Iiecause die impugned order dated 04.01.2021 passed by die

l.d. Trial Court is completely illegal as die Petitioner was
nowhere connected with the issuance of cheques, nor the
cheques of accused no. I company were signed by him, nor the
Petitioner holds any position at any level in the accused no. I
company alter 31.03.2016,

B. Because the l.d. Trial Court has committed a grave error by

passing the impugned order dated 04.01.2021 for issuance of
summons against the Petitioner without vorilying the master
data of the accused no. I company or any document from the
Respondent to prove the association of the Petitioner with the
accused no. I company or with any of the three cheques in
question,

C. Because the Petitioner docs not reside at the address

mentioned in the memo of parties nor lie holds the position of
authorized signatory in the accused no, I company, the
 6

issuance of
summons against the Petitioner is an error caused
Ihe Ld. 11 ial Court due to their failure in verifying the
infoimation about the accused in the complaint from the

master data of the accused no. 1 company.

D. Because the Respondent has filed various cheque dishonor

cases against the accused no. 1 company and in all of them

named the Petitioner as accused no. 3. While other than the CC
no. 182 of 2020 and 183 of 2020, in no other case summons
were issued against the Petitioner after it was brought in notice
of the LD. Trial Court by the counsel for the Petitioner that the
Petitioner had resigned from the board of the accused no. 1
company from 31.03.2016.

E. Because in the present case summons have been issued against

the Petitioner vide order dated 04.01.2021 through an illegal
order as no cause of action arose against the Petitioner.

F. Because on 31.08.2022, the Petitioner filed an application for

deleting/striking off the name of the Petitioner from the array
of the complaint case no. 183 of 2020 on the ground that he
was unnecessarily impleaded in the complaint case, as he was
not director, when the dishonored cheques in question were

issued.

G. Because the aforesaid prayer of the Petitioner was dismissed

by the Ld. Trial Court only on the ground that Ld. MM was
not empowered to discharge the petitioner or order stoppage of
proceeding against him.
 7-

II. Because the Petitioner has been falsely and unnecessarily

implicated in the complaint case number 183/2020 by the

Respondent under section 138 r/w section 141 and 142 of the

NI Act, wherein the Ld. MM Court of Shahdara, KKD, Delhi

has erroneously summoned the petitioner because of which
petitioner constrained to file present revision petition.

f Because the complaint was filed by the Respondent on the

allegation that petitioner was the authorized signatory of the
accused no.l company which issued the cheques that were
dishonored on presentation but no proof or documentary
evidence was provided by the Respondent to substantiate its
allegation.

Because the Petitioner had resigned from the post of Director

of accused no. 1 company on 29.03.2016 itself and his
resignation was accepted on 31.03.2016, whereas the cheques
forming the subject matter of complaints were dishonored in
2020 that is almost after 5 years from date of resignation of
Petitioner.

K. Because the petitioner was neither in-charge of the accused

no.l company nor responsible for affairs ol the company when
the alleged offence under section 138 NI Act was committed.
There is no specific averment as to how the petitioner was
looking after or responsible to affairs of accused no.l company
to invoke provision of section 141 NI Act against him.

L. Because the copy of the Master Data of the accused no. I i.e.
company unequivocally establishes that petitioner etas
 director of accused no. 1 company when alleged cheques were

dishonored on presentation.

M. Because there is not even a single averment in the complaint

hy the respondent that even after resigning as director ol

accused no. 1 company, petitioner occupied any such position

on account of which, they continued to he person in-charge
and responsible to accused no.l company for conduct of its
business.

N. Because the vicarious liability of Petitioner has been invoked

solely on the presumption of him being a director/authorized

signatory of the accused no.l company when the alleged

offence under section 138 of N1 Act was committed.

O. Because in the complaint covering subject matter of present

petition, Petitioner had already resigned from directorship of
the company much before cheques in question were presented
for encashment. Therefore, he was not in position to compel
the accused no.l company or accused no.2 to ensure that
cheques when presented were honored or to comply with the
notice of demand by making payments towards dishonored
cheques.

P. Because the Ld. Trial Court has erred in passing common

summoning order against the petitioner in complaint case as he
is not a party to the case because he was neither signatory to
the cheques in question and nor a director of the accused no.l
company when the cheques were issued or when they were
dishonored.
 ---
Q. Because in Anita Malhotra Vs. Apparel lixport Promotion
Council £ Anr.. 2012 (I) SCC 520. Apex Court held that tl a
person has proved his resignation on the relevant date "hen

the offence was committed, then proceeding against such a

person is liable to be quashed.

complaint case has not carried out any inquiry or ordered

investigation as contemplated under section 202 Cr.P.C. before
issuing process against the Petitioner. Hence, erroneously
issued the summoning order against the petitioner who is not a
necessary party in the ease.

S. Because in llarshendra Kumar D. Vs. Rehatilata Koley Etc.,

(2011) 3 SCC 331. I Ion 'hie Supreme Court stated that a
Director whose resignation has been accepted by the company
and that has been dub notified to the Registrar of Companies,
cannot be made accountable and fastened with liability for
anything done by the company alter the acceptance of his
resignation.

T. Because in Sudeep Jain Vs. M/s. I CE Industries Ltd.. Crl.

MC. 1821/2013, dated 06.03.2013. Delhi High Court held that
the prime objective ol this (. ourt is to remind all the
Metropolitan Magistrate in Delhi to carelullv sciutini/e till the
complaint cases being filed under section loS r w 141 ol the
N1 Act, 1881 against the accused companies at the pre­
summoning stage and make sure that notice be issued to only
 lose Diiectois or employees of the companies who are
associated and responsible lor the acts of the company.

Because in Alibaba Nabibasha Vs. Small Farmers Agri-

Business Consortium, 2020 CRL.M.C. 1602/2020, the Delhi
11C stated that in cases where the accused has resigned from
the company, then in such cases if the cheques are
subsequently issued and dishonoured, it cannot be said that
such an accused is in-charge of and responsible for the conduct
of the day to day affairs of the company, as contemplated in
section 141 of Nl Act for being proceeded against. In this case,
Delhi HC held that before summoning an accused under
Section 138 Nl Act, Magistrate is expected to examine the
nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence
in support thereof and then to proceed further with proper
application of mind to the legal principle on issue.

V. Because in Geeta Srivastava Vs. Bhanu Sharma 2003, CriLJ

801, Delhi HC held that under Section 138 of Nl Act. liability
is only on the drawer who had issued the cheque and no other
person", therefore, since the petitioner had not issued the
cheque, therefore, summoning of petitioner as an accused is
abuse of process of the Court.

That the Petitioner/Revisionist has not filed any other

appeal/revision against the aforesaid impugned order before this
Hon’ble Court or any other Court except the present one.

PRAYER
 In the view of the above circumstances it is most respectfully

prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to .

a) Set aside impugned summoning order dated 04/01/21, passed by

Ld. MM Prayank Nayak, Shahdara/KKD/Delhi, against the

petitioner and discharge the petitioner in Complaint Case No.

183/2020 titled as Sanjay Varshney v. M/S Pearl Hospitality and

Events Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., in the interest ofjustice; and/or

b) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may
also be passed in favor of the Petitioner and against the Respondent,
in the interest of justice.

PETITIONER

THROUGH COUNSEL

VIJAY RANI, SANJEET PALIWAL & PAYAL PALIWAL

(ADVOCATES)

PLACE: DELHI
DATED: . Q/o
 K AUK ARIKH) vi ! ^)NlUl ,),S 1 Ul(T AND SESSION ,IIID<;K,
CR1Mima.AC0URT*SI,A,,I)A«A ,)|S 1 uk I * l>ICMII
^uiminal revision petition no. am
IN
CT-183/2020

IN THE MATTER OE-

ANOOPARORA
...,1*11111 ()NI’K/KI'-VISK >NIS i
VERSUS
SANJAY VARS11NEY .....RESI'ONDEN'I
AIMDAVIT

I, Anoop Arora (Age about 40 years) S/o Ashok Kumar Arora R/o M A I NO,
01021, TOWER 1, ATS APARTMENT, INDIRAI'IJRAM (i|IA/IAMAD.
U.P. - 201014 , do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-

1. That 1 am deponent herein and the Petitioner in ihe above-noted

revision petition and I am well conversant with the fuels of the
case, hence I am competent to swear this affidavit,
2. That 1 have filed revision petition l l/s 307 C'.r.l’.C he I ore this
Hon’ble courts. The contents of the same may kindly he read as
part and parcel of this affidavit being not repeated here for the sake
of brevity. The contents of present affidavit as well as
accompanying writ petition have been read over to me in any
vernacular language, which I understand well and the same are true
and correct.
^3,. That the contents of the affidavit as well as petition are true and
correct and nothing material has been concealed tl^rel'rom.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION ? 0 MkR

Verified at Delhi on this 20lh March -2023, dial the contents of the
above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and nothiim material has
been concealcad therefrom.
DEPONENT
t ..TiFlta
..TIFlED TW aI m
.1HAT IHt MjfONtNT
DEI-ON UN l
Snri/Stnt./Km
S/o.i, W/o, D/d, Sh,\ Lu
".............................................*
Identified by Shrt/Sfnt.
has setemnlv 'if ,
on....... m
tnat the co,1 . of toe atisua«/it whicti
i-.ave been read Over r* Explained to Ivm/ncr
■. true & correct to hK/heKknowIcdgrf.
?\r
Oath Commwor* *y\KKD w' >•
List of Document Produced by >'!•LAIN T!!;!l_
■.
j J IH'Ii ii liNOANT
Order XIII Rule of the order of Civil Procedure from pr<*Hrrib«#d hy ibt# I fifth C.ouit

Suit/Caw No# ....••*•••**•*.....' . '

IN THE COURT oi<
................... J^.WOf:j...AoCSlU.Q.,...............................................................,’lalnllff
Versus
......................... &JC ......................................................................Defendant

List of documents produced with the plaint (or the first hearing on behalf of the I laintiff or IXfe )
Date of hearing This list as filed by this day of 202^

What become of the Remarks

Serial Descriptions and date This the
document
No. if any of this document Document
is intended if rejected
brought
to prove date of
the record
the exhibit return to
1. Coft ^ <&vck^
/ s' mark put
on the
Party &
Signature
cLcdb-S 0^ Oi J-CTli. document of Party or
Pleader to
whom the
document
C&2^>y was return

| 6L PeJU.-McneK

3
Ooty
(Q accej^zu”0-
dfc
n

H Coj=>[j ^ f&owhJo- I3',C]

through
hTR-ll Advocate

3. 2-0
hojta, &y acansbJm-d-

Signature
of Party
of Please
date
Processing
FVFNT^Pp\;\iRSllNEY Vs‘ M/S PEARL HOSPITALITY AND
L\ LN IS PRIVATE LIMITED
CC NI Act No. 183/2020
PS: ANAND V1HAR

04.01.2021

Fiesh case received. It be checked and registered.

Matter taken up through VC on CISCO Webex.

Present: Complainant with counsel through Webex.

This is complaint filed for offence punishable under Section

138 N. 1. Act. Complaint, affidavit of evidence and other annexed
documents perused. As reported by Reader cum Ahlmad of this court
original complaint alongwith original documents have already been filed
for the purpose of safe custody. 1 take cognizance of said offence.
Following the law laid down in A. C. Narayanan Vs. State
of Maharashtra & Anr.” (2014) 11 SCC 790. complaint, affidavit of
evidence and documents considered. In view of complaint, documents
produced and verification in the form of affidavit of evidence, there are
sufficient grounds for proceeding further against accused person(s) for
offence punishable under Section 138 N. I. Act.
Hence, issue summons against the accused on filing of
P.F./R.C./Approved Courier for 07.04.2021. Service be also effected on
the email, whatsapp message(s) and text message of accused person(s),
as provided by the complainant and further subject to filing of report of
service. The process server is directed to serve the summons by way of
affixation, if premises found closed or same could not be served
personally or on any adult male member.

Contd....2/-
 An endorsement he also made that if application for
compounding at iirsl or second hearing is made die court may pass
appropriate orders at the earliest as per judgment of M/s. Meiers Meters
and I nslniinciils (I*) Ltd. v. Kanclum Meliln, (20IS) I SCC 560 and il
settlement is made at subsequent stage the consequences as envisaged in
Danwdar S. I'rahlw; (2010) 5 SCC 663 shall be enforced.
The Ahlmad is directed to mention the official email id and
video conferencing link of this Court on the summons. Complainant is
directed to file PP and take steps within 15 days including providing
copy(ics) of complaint otherwise the complaint may be dismissed U/s
204(4) Cr. P.C.

Put up for appearance of accused on 07.04.2021.

(PRAYANK NAYAK)
MM(N1 Act) Digital Court
Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
04.01.2021
 H ■ P) Mrtzx are - 2-

Date: 29/03/2016

Hoard u? iV.rectoi,

-9M11 HOSPITALITY & EVENTSPRIVATE LIMITED

'1 Us 'RIV{ R MAIL, SHAHDARA,
•• \ HI 110032

Sub*. Resignation for the post of Directorship

A e Sit,

• Vu? u- ?ry ore occupation elsewhere, 1 an not in a position to devote my time to the affairs of the
company. Accordingly, I wish tosubmit my resignation as director of the company witn effect from
31 03.2016

‘Yr.dly acknowledge the receipt and arrange to submit the necessary forms with the office of the
Registrar of Companies Delhi, accordingly

Yours Faith tally.

i AUooY-
V
Aroop Arora
OlN NO. • 02203522
AfHV F 174 Laxmi Nagar
110092
 ure - 2

i• aiWft MAu
:... . ?lf>057 INDIA

Date: 31/03/2016

To.

Mr. Anoop Arora.

Add: F-174, Laxmi Nagar
Delhi-1100S2

Sub: Acceptance of your Resignation letter w.e.f. 31.03.2016

Dear Mr. Anoop,

This is in reference to your letter of resignation submitted on 29 March 2016. I wish to inform you that
your resignation has been approved by the board of directors of the company (Extract of the Boars
Meeting is attached for your record) and you will be relieved of your responsibilities at the end of yojr
last working day on 31 March 2016,

It has been a pleasure having you as director and we wish you success in your future undertakings.
Company will miss your good behaviour, hard work and the heights you gave to the company with your
strong determination and support.

Yours Faithfully.
On the behalf of the board
 IS ■ ------- y
f FORM No. DlR-11 fg§ Notice of resignation of a director to the
Registrar
[Pursuant to proviso to section 168 (1) of The
Companies Act, 2013 and rule 16 of The
Companies (Appointment and Qualification of
^rectors) Rules, 2014] WWW TTTrl

Form Language 0 English Q Hindi

Refer the instruction kit for filing the form.

Notice is hereby given that, ANOOP ARORA

the director of M/s PEARL HOSPITALITY & EVENTS PRIVATE LIMITED

has/have resigned from the office of director of the company with effect from ,3/31/16
the details of which are given below.

(a)*CIN Pre-fill
U55101DL2012PT C231653

(b) GLN

(c) Name of the company PEARL HOSPITALITY & EVENTS PRIVATE LIMITED l

(d) Registered office address

oi

SHOP NO. GF-38

CROSS RIVER MALL, CBD SHAHDARA
,DELHI
Delhi
11QQ32..
(e) Email ID of the company Iravijain.ca2010@gmail.com

2. Details of the director resigning from such company

(a)‘ Director Identification Number (DIN) (02203522 Pre-fi

(b) Name ANOOP ARORA

(c) Nationality IN

3. (a)'Date of appointment 16/02/2012

(b)* Designation Director

(c)Category Promoter

^ 4. (a) ‘ Date of filing of resignation with the company 29/03/2016

(b) Effective date of resignation specified in the notice of resignation, if any ,31/03/2016

5. r Reasons for resignation

 _ . Whether confirmation is received from the company @Yes !<?•
ONo

A^chment(s)
List of attachments
(1) Notice of resignation filed with the company; Attach Resignation letter Anoop.pdf
(2) Proof of dispatch; Acceptance of resignation ofAnoop.pdf
Attach Acceptance of resignation of Anoop.pdf
(4) Optional attachment(s) - if any Resignation letterAnoop.pdf
Attach Acceptance of resignation of Anoop.pdfl

Remove Attachments

Declaration

ANOOP ARORA , the applicant do solemnly declare that to the

best of my/our knowledge and belief the information given in this return is correct and complete

To be digitally signed by Director ANOOP W--------

KUMAR SgJv-TL
ARORA
DIN 02203522

)4P1^ Note: Attention is also drawn to provisions of Section 448 and 449 which provide for punishment for false
Tqc statement and punishment for false evidence respectively.

Modify Check Form Prescrutiny Submit

This eForm has been taken on file maintained by the Registrar of Companies through electronic mode and on
the basis of statement of correctness given by the filing company.

C
 . ,M
kuitipflhy Mnutm Untn

i ;,»pAn> Masur Data

Hr *
/in *
U55101DL2012PTtf2.11 f»5;»
/(oinpany Name
•’KARL I lOSIM PALI I V & EVENTS I'KIVAI li UMI'I H'
f KOCCodc
RoC-Udlii
Registration Number
231053
Company Category
Company limited by Shares
Company SubCategory Non-pm i company
Class of Company Private
Authorised Capital(Rs) 5000000
Paid up Capital(Rs) 100000
Number ot Mcmbcrs(Applieable in ease of
company without Share Capital) 0
Date of Incorporation 16/02/2012
Unit No I ,KEP Ginger Hotel Plot No C, DDA Community
Registered Address
Centre, Vivek Vihar Delhi West Delhi DL 110095 IN
Address other than R/o where all or any books of
account and papers are maintained
Email Id mohitjain@navkaarbanciuets.com
Whether Listed or not Unlisted
ACTIVE compliance ACTIVE compliant
Suspended at stoek exchange
Date of last AGM 30/09/2022
Date of Balance Sheet 31/03/2022
Company Status(for efiling) Active

Charges
Charge Id Assets under charge Charge Amount Date of Creation Date of Modification Status
No Charges Exists for Company/LLP

Dircci ors. Signni on Detai Is

DIN/PAN Name Begin date End date Surrendered DIN
01955985 DEVENDER KUMAR JAIN 16/02/2012
01956125 POONAM JAIN 16/02/2012
06380320 MOHIT JAIN 07/12/2012

hUps://www.mca.gov.in/mcafoportal/companyLLPMasterData.do
1/1
 ?5
c- C £.j >w-* - cc£
• *-\(0 v-wd-T

:l mm726259

!N THE COURT OF HOVBLE DISTRICT AN D SESSION

JLDGE* kark.ardoo.ma court, shahdara district.
DELHI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.____ /2023
IN
CT-1 S3'2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

ANOOP ARORA ....PETITONER REVISIONIST
VERSUS
SAVIAV VARSHNEY ..... RESPONDENT

APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAV IN

FILING THE CRIMINAL REVISION

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the present Criminal Revision Petition is being Died

against the impugned final order dated 04.01.2021 passed b\
Ms. Prayank Nayak. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate (NT Act). Digital
Court. District Shahdara. K.KD Courts. Delhi in Complaint Case
No. 183 of 2020 whereby the Ld. Trial Court has issued
summoning order against the Re\isionist Petitioner.

2. That on 07.04.2021 baiiabie warrant has been issued

against the Petitioner due to his failure in appearing
before the Trial Court. On 26.08.2021 fresh bailable
warrant have been issued against the Petitioner by the
Trial Court due to non-appearance. It is pertinent to
mention here that the address mentioned b> the
Respondent in the memo of parties is wrong and no
sen ire was e\ er made to the Petitioner in respect of the
aforesaid case, therefore, the Petitioner was unable to
have anv knowledge about the case listed before this
Court.

»nai immediate.;, aner me Petitioner got to know that the aforesaid

case is pending against h:m he appeared belore the Trial Court on
 X

Ihc von next dale of hearing, i.c., 2*). 10.2021 and seeks time to file
the \ akalatnama and informed the Court that he has not received

the vop\ ot the complaint or am other document of the aforesaid

ease. Because the Petitioner docs not reside nor work at the address
mentioned by the Respondent in the memo of parties as lie has

resigned from the post of director of the accused no. 1 company

wax back in 2016 itself

That on 31.08.2022 which is the next effective date of hearing in

the aforesaid ease before the trial Court the Petitioner has tiled an
application to delete his name from the aforesaid case as he was not
the director on the date when the cheques were issued nor he has
signed those cheques nor he w as associated w ith the accused no. I
company so no cause of action arose against him. Phe L.d. 1 rial
Court dismissed the prayer of the Petitioner as the summons w ere
alreadx issued against him and the aforesaid case was sent tor

mediation.

1 hat the matter was pending in mediation and again bailable

warrants were issued against the Petitioner who is accused no. 3 for

next date of hearing.

That the issuance of the summoning order passed against the

Petitioner is illegal and the I d. 1 rial Court has committed a grave

error by issuing the summons against the Petitioner without

verifying the contents of the Complaint and the documents annexed

w ith it.
 A
That delay of almost 350 days is caused in filing the present
7.
Criminal Revision Petition. The delay in challenging the

04,01.2021 order of the Ld. Trial Court was not

deliberate but was due to unavoidable circumstances as

nn service was made to the Petitioner.

That in the case “Collector (LA) v. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107, the two
SC

judge bench of SC held that the courts have been conferred the
power to condone delay by the legislature through section 5 of the
Limitation Act. The intent of Section 5 is to help courts in
achieving substantial justice to parties. The expression “sufficient
cause" in section 5 is flexible enough to enable courts to apply the
law in a meaningful manner which meets the ends ofjusticr.

9. That in the case “Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar

Academy (2013) 12 SCC 649, SC stressed that there should be
liberal, pragmatic, justice oriented approach. The expression
‘sufficient cause’ as it appears in the Act, must be interpreted and
understood in the proper spirit as these terms are elastic enough to
be applied liberally in the interest ofjustice.

10. That as soon as the Petitioner got an opportunity the Criminal

Revision Petition was filed without any further delay. Hence, in the
interest ofjustice the delay in filing the Criminal Revision Petition
on part of the Petitioner may be condoned by this Hon'ble Court
and the matter be heard and decided on merits.

PRAY 1-R
 H

°rc most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be

pleased to:-

°ne c^a- of almost 350 days in filing the present Criminal

Revision Petition: and/or

(b) pass such other orders and further orders/directions as are deemed

just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.,. «

PETITIONER

, THROUGH COUNSEL

VIJAY RANI, SANJEET PALIWAL & PAYAL PALIWAL

CM. NO. G-711, KKD COURT COMPLEX, DELHI -38
• «i50561 556

PLACE: DELHI
DATED: ■o VT
 IN THE COURT OK HON’BLE DISTRICT AND SESSION
JUDGE, KARKARDOOMA COURT, SHAIIDARA DIS'I Rid
DELHI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.____ 12023
IN
CT 183/2020

IN THE MATTER OK:

ANOOP ARORA ....PET1TONER/REVISIONIST
VERSUS
SAN.IAY VARSHNEY .....RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT

E Anoop Arora (Age about 40 years) S/o Ashok Kumar Arora R/o Flat
No.01021 . TOWER 1, ATS Apartment. Indirapuram Ghaziabad, U.P. -
201014 . do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under-

1. That 1 am deponent herein and the Petitioner in the above-

noted revision petition and 1 am well conversant with the
facts of the case, hence 1 am competent to swear this
affidavit.
2. That 1 have filed an application for condonation of the delay
in the above noted case before this Uon’ble courts. The
contents of the same may kindly be read as part and parcel
of this affidavit being not repeated here for the sake of
brevity. The contents of present affidavit as well as
accompanying writ petition have been read over to me in
any vernacular language, which 1 understand well and the
same are true and correct.
3. That the contents'of the affidavit as well as petition are true
and correct and nothing material has been a, concealed
therefrom. JcUroT,
^0 MAR 2073 deponent
VERIFICATION
Verified at Delhi on this 20th March-2023, that the contents
ve affidavit ai-Slffii^d’^WA^ct’TtHBn^DfefijBxKife^c and nothing
fsbeencon^f^^ ■ * ,

that the co: ;♦

*• which
have been reac
* Penned him/her
are true ftconea* ms/herlknowledge,
fL 3
Oath G •oner KXOCourt Or"--
 119643362325729864

IN THE COURT OF, b i ^ T'Y'jg -v —(<; 110)

Suit / Appeal No.______ ___________ JURISDICTION OF 202

In re:-
Plaintiff(s) Petitioner(s)
rrtn^ ^Wtsv^ -Appellant(s) r Complainant(s)

VERSUS

Defendant(s) / Respondent(s) / Accused

The above named. f -pjrl I HavWk _do hereby appoint

Ms. VIJAY RANI & ASSOCIATES

\ lu 'Uo LEGAL ADVISORS & CONSULTANTS
k i o?>C7Supreme Court of India & Delhi High Court
ir-%
LrnW; 1 VIJAY RANI
Advocate
Enrl. No.: D/1459/2007
Chamber No.: G-711, G-Block, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi-110032
Mob.: 9990698323, 8130561556 Email: vijayatyagi71@gmail.com
(herein after called the advocate/s) to be my / our Advocate in the above - noted case authorize
him/them