Delhi District Court
Kalatmak Ladies Suits vs Rajesh Vaish on 16 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. URVI GUPTA,
JMFC NI ACT-01, CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
1. Complaint case : 536531/2016
Number
2. Name & Address of M/s KALATMAK
Complainant: LADIES SUITS PVT.
LTD.
At: 1/3422, Regharpura,
Karol Bagh, New
Delhi-110005
Through its A. R.
Shiv Narain Chawla.
3. Name & Address of : Sh. RAJESH VAISH
Accused S/o Not Known
Authorized Signatories
M/S R. R. Designs,
R/O RZ-3D/7, Gali No. 8,
East Indra Park, Palam
Colony,
New Delhi- 110045.
URVI
GUPTA
Ct. Cases 536531/2016 Page No. 1/18
KALATMAK LADIES SUITS Vs. RAJESH VAISH Digitally signed
by URVI GUPTA
Date:
2026.02.16
15:45:57 +0530
4. Offence complained : Section 138 r/w 141
Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881.
5. Plea of guilt : Pleaded not guilty
6. Final order : Convicted
7. Date of institution : 18.04.2015
8. Date on which case : 10.11.2025
was reserved for
judgment
9. Date of judgment : 16.02.2026
Ct. Cases 536531/2016 Page No. 2/18
KALATMAK LADIES SUITS Vs. RAJESH VAISH
URVI
GUPTA
Digitally signed
by URVI GUPTA
Date: 2026.02.16
15:46:06 +0530
JUDGMENT
1. The present Judgment is a result of culmination of trial
initiated on the complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (Hereinafter referred to as “NI Act“) by the
complainant M/S Kalatmak Ladies Suits Pvt Ltd. through its AR
Mr. Sanjeev Rastogi against the accused, Mr. Rajesh Vaish.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The version of complainant is that complainant company is
dealing in manufacturing and wholesale of ladies suits. It is a duly
incorporated company vide a proper certificate. It is stated by the
complainant that the accused had purchased ladies suits from the
complainant vide two invoices bearing no. INR 4383 dated
10.10.2014 for Rs. 5,895 and INR 4382 dated 10.10.2014 for Rs.
94,830, whereby total goods of Rs. 1,00,725/- were duly received
by the accused. The invoices are Ex CW 1/3 (colly) and the
statement of account maintained by the complainant in its regular
course of business with the accused is Ex CW1/4. Thereafter for
the discharge if its liability, the accused It was only after repeated
requests that the accused in order to discharge this liability,
accused issued two cheques bearing No. 000079 for Rs. 50,363/-
(dated 24.11.2014) and cheque bearing no. 000080 for Rs.
50,363/- (dated 30.11.2014), out of which cheque bearing no.
000079 could not be encashed and became stale, whereas the
second cheque bearing no. 000080 which is Ex CW1/5, was
thereafter presented for encashment and was returned
Ct. Cases 536531/2016 Page No. 3/18
KALATMAK LADIES SUITS Vs. RAJESH VAISH
URVI
GUPTA
Digitally signed
by URVI GUPTA
Date: 2026.02.16
15:46:13 +0530
dishonoured. The present complaint is only qua cheque bearing
no. 000080, which is Ex. CW-1/5.
3. Complainant presented the said cheque for encashment to
his banker, however, cheque was returned unpaid with the
endorsement “Funds Insufficient” vide return memo which is Ex-
CW1/6.
4. The complainant, thereafter, sent a legal notice dated
16.03.2015 Ex-CW1/7 to accused. The speed post receipt, Regd.
A.D receipt and courier receipt are Ex-CW1/8, Ex-CW1/9 and
Ex-CW1/10 respectively while their tracking report is Ex-CW1/11
and Ex- CW1/12. Despite deemed service of the legal notice,
accused failed to make the payment of the cheque amount to the
complainant within the statutory period.
5. On summoning, accused entered his appearance and it was
duly ensured that accused has received the copy of complaint
along with relevant documents. Thereafter, notice under section
251 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
“CrPC“) was framed against accused on 31.08.2018. The contents
of notice were read over and explained to accused in vernacular to
which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Plea of
defence of accused was duly recorded on the same day.
PLEA OF DEFENCE OF ACCUSED
6. In plea of defence, accused stated that the cheque in
question bears his signatures. He denied receiving the legal
demand notice. He further submitted that he will have to check the
Ct. Cases 536531/2016 Page No. 4/18
KALATMAK LADIES SUITS Vs. RAJESH VAISH URVI
GUPTA
Digitally signed
by URVI GUPTA
Date: 2026.02.16
15:46:24 +0530
account to ascertain if there is any due towards the complainant.
Thereafter, accused was granted opportunity to cross-examine the
complainant and matter was fixed for complainant evidence.
COMPLAINANT EVIDENCE
7. The case was proceeded with and the pre summoning
evidence affidavit of the complainant affidavit (CW-1/A) was
adopted in lieu of examination in chief and the complainant relied
on the following documents to support his case as in his affidavit
of evidence.
ï‚· Ex CW1/1 – Board of resolution in favour of previous AR
ï‚· Ex CW1/2 – Certificate of incorporation of the Complainant
company
ï‚· Ex CW 1/3 (colly) – Invoices relied by the complainant
ï‚· Ex CW 1/4 – Statement of accounts
ï‚· Ex CW1/5 – Original Cheque in question
ï‚· Ex CW 1/6 – Original Return Memo
ï‚· Ex CW 1/7 – Copy of legal demand notice
ï‚· Ex CW1/9- Ex CW1/10 – Postal, Regd A.D., and Courier
receipts
ï‚· Ex CW1/11- Ex CW1/12 – Tracking reports
8. An application u/s 145(2) NI act was filed by the accused
and the accused was thereafter given various opportunities to cross
examine the complainant did not cross-examine the complainant.
Since 26.09.2019 to 16.09.2022 various opportunities were given
to the accused to cross examine the complainant , however he
failed to do so. Subsequently on 16.09.2022, his right to cross
Ct. Cases 536531/2016 Page No. 5/18
KALATMAK LADIES SUITS Vs. RAJESH VAISH URVI
GUPTA
Digitally signed
by URVI GUPTA
Date: 2026.02.16
15:46:31 +0530
examine the complainant was closed. All this while, various
NBWs were issued against the accused to secure his presence, who
sought time on each appearance to settle the matter but always
failed to comply. During the entire trial, the accused even failed to
bring on record any surety bond as well, despite opportunities.
Accordingly, the testimony of complainant as in his pre
summoning evidence affidavit has remained unchallenged and
unrebutted.
STATEMENT UNDER 313 CR.PC
9. The statement of accused under section 313 CrPC r/w 281
Cr.P.C was recorded on 07.03.2023 wherein all incriminatory
evidences were put to him, wherein the accused admitted his
signatures on the cheque in question, the invoices on record but
denied receiving the goods from the complainant. He further
submitted that the cheque in question was given for security
purposes to the complainant. The goods were stated to have been
incorrectly mentioned/ described on the invoices and the ledger.
He disputed the authenticity of the ledger on record. He further
claimed that the goods were defective and some of them were
returned to the complainant, of which he alleged he has proof. He
further submitted that he had no other documentary proof of
communication with the complainant about wrong goods The
accused denied any liability towards the complainant and rather
stated that it is the complainant who owes him money.. He
expressed his desire to lead DE.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
Ct. Cases 536531/2016 Page No. 6/18
KALATMAK LADIES SUITS Vs. RAJESH VAISH URVI
GUPTA
Digitally signed
by URVI GUPTA
Date: 2026.02.16
15:46:37 +0530
10. The accused opted to lead DE, however despite being
granted multiple opportunities, he did not examine any witnesses
to support his defence. Matter was fixed for DE since 17.04.2023
till 07.10.2024, but accused failed to lead DE, despite repeated
opportunities and accordingly, his right to lead DE was closed on
07.10.2024. Rather accused in between had again attempted to
settle the matter and then stopped appearing before the court This
was never challenged by the accused. Thereafter, matter was listed
for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
11. Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that complainant has
proved his case and nothing contradictory has come out in his
cross-examination. He further argued that the complainant has
established the ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 138 NI
Act while the accused has failed to rebut the presumption raised
against him under law by leading any evidence or punching any
kind of loopholes in the complainant’s case.
12. On the other hand, despite repeated opportunities, the
accused side has failed to address any arguments for five dates of
hearing and subsequently his right to address final arguments was
closed by the court. No written arguments were also filed by the
accused.
13. I have perused the case file, documents placed on record
by both the parties and duly considered the submission made by
Ld. Counsel for complainant and accused.
Ct. Cases 536531/2016 Page No. 7/18 URVI
KALATMAK LADIES SUITS Vs. RAJESH VAISH
GUPTA
Digitally signed
by URVI GUPTA
Date: 2026.02.16
15:46:42 +0530
INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 138 NI ACT
14. Before delving into discussion over the facts of the present
case, it would be apposite to discuss the legal standards required
to be met by both sides in trial of offence under Section 138 NI
Act. In Gimpex Private Limited vs. Manoj Goel (2021) SC
Hon’ble Supreme Court has divided the ingredients forming the
basis of the offence under Section138 of the NI Act in the
following structure:
1) The drawing of a cheque by person on
an account maintained by him.
2) The cheque being drawn for the
discharge in whole or in part of any debt
or other liability;
3) Presentation of the cheque to the bank
arranged to be paid from that account,
4) The return of the cheque by the drawee
bank.
5) A notice by the payee or the holder in
due course demanding payment of the
amount to the drawer of the cheque
within 30 days.
6) The drawer of the cheque failing to
make payment within 15 days of the
receipt of the notice.
15. Therefore, the accused can be held guilty of the offence
under Section 138 NI Act only if the above-mentioned ingredients
Ct. Cases 536531/2016 Page No. 8/18
KALATMAK LADIES SUITS Vs. RAJESH VAISH
Digitally
signed by
URVI
URVI GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.02.16
15:46:49
+0530
are proved by the complainant co-extensively. Moreover,
conditions stipulated under Section 142 NI Act have to be fulfilled
in addition to above-mentioned ingredients. Hence, unless these
conditions are met, accused cannot be held guilty.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
With Respect To First, Third And Fourth Ingredient:
16. It is pertinent from the pleadings and evidence that
complainant has proved the original cheque vide Ex-CW1/5,
which the accused had not disputed as being drawn on the account
of the accused and are duly signed by the accused. Accused,
during his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C has admitted that cheque in
question Ex-CW1/5 bears his signatures. It was not disputed that
cheque in question was presented within period of validity. The
cheque in question was returned unpaid for reason ‘Funds
Insufficient’ vide return memo Ex-CW1/6. The reasons for
dishonour are duly covered within the scheme of NI Act. The
accused has not disputed the genuiness and correctness of the
cheque drawn on the account of the firm of which he was a Partner
and Authorized signatory, return memo, even in his statement u/s
294 Cr.PC. Therefore, requirement of first, third and fourth
ingredients stand fulfilled in the present matter.
With Respect To fifth and sixth Ingredient:
17. In case of CC Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed 2007
SC, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that giving a legal notice to
the drawer before filing of complaint under Section 138 of NI ActCt. Cases 536531/2016 Page No. 9/18
KALATMAK LADIES SUITS Vs. RAJESH VAISH URVI
GUPTA
Digitally signed
by URVI GUPTA
Date:
2026.02.16
15:46:56 +0530
is a mandatory requirement. As far as proof of fifth and sixth
ingredient is concerned, accused during the stage of notice under
Section 251 Cr.P.C. said that he didn’t receive the legal demand
notice while in his statement u/s 313 CrP.C, he submitted that “I
had received the legal demand notice”. Hence the accused has
changed his stance during the trial and has accepted the factum of
receiving the legal demand notice which is Ex CW1/7. Moreover,
Perusal of documents Ex-CW1/8, Ex-CW1/9, Ex- CW1/10, Ex
CW1/11 and Ex CW 1/12 shows that the item was delivered to
Rajesh (accused). Moreover, even if taken otherwise , perusal of
the record shows that at various times NBWs were issued against
the accused at the same address and he had entered appearance on
the those warrants. Hence, it is a proven fact that the accused was
residing at the same address only as is mentioned on the legal
demand notice.
18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C.C Alavi Haji
(Supra) held that it shall be presumed in terms of Section 27 of
General Clauses Act that service of notice has been effected when
it has been sent on the correct address. Therefore, the court finds
that the legal demand notice in the present case has been
successfully served to the accused on his address. Furthermore, it
is also clear from the record that accused had failed to make the
payment within 15 days of receipt of notice. Hence, fifth and sixth
ingredient also stand fulfilled.
With respect to second ingredient:
Ct. Cases 536531/2016 Page No. 10/18 URVI
KALATMAK LADIES SUITS Vs. RAJESH VAISH GUPTA
Digitally signed
by URVI GUPTA
Date:
2026.02.16
15:47:01 +0530
19. With respect to second ingredient, the complainant has to
prove that the cheque in question was drawn by the drawer for
discharging a legally enforceable debt or liability. In the present
case, accused, in notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. and in his statement u/s
313 Cr.P.C has admitted that cheque in question Ex-CW1/5 bears
his signatures and the same has not been disputed during the entire
trial. As per the scheme of NI Act, once the accused admits
signature on the cheque in question, certain presumptions shall be
drawn, which lead to shifting of onus on accused. The collective
effect of provisions of Section 118 and Section 139 NI Act is a
presumption that the cheque was drawn for consideration and
given by the accused for the discharge of debt or other liability.
Both the sections use the expression ‘shall’, which shows that the
presumption provided for in the Act is a ‘presumption of law’ and
makes it imperative for the court to raise such presumptions. In the
recent judgment, Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramaniyan (2021) SC,
the larger bench of the Supreme Court, held that:
“U/s 118 & 139, once issuance of cheque
and signature admitted, it is required to
presume that the cheque was issued as
consideration for a legally enforceable
debt.”
20. Further, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Rangappa v. Sri Mohan (2010) SC that presumption under
these sections is rebuttable in nature and standard of proof required
for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of
probability. To rebut the same, accused can rely upon the material
Ct. Cases 536531/2016 Page No. 11/18 URVI
KALATMAK LADIES SUITS Vs. RAJESH VAISH
GUPTA
Digitally signed
by URVI GUPTA
Date: 2026.02.16
15:47:12 +0530
put forth by the complainant or lead his independent evidence.
Therefore, accused can rebut the presumption under Section 139
NI Act either by punching hole in the version of complainant by
cross-examination of complainant and complainant witnesses or
by leading his defence evidence or both. In the instant case,
accused has failed to adopt any of the avenues. He has failed to
cross examine the complainant to rebut the presumption and has
not even lead any DE.
21. It is the case of complainant that the accused had
purchased ladies suits from the complainant vide two invoices
which are Ex- CW 1/3 (colly), which were duly received by the
accused. The complainant has also filed the running account
maintained in the name of the accused by the complainant
company which is Ex. CW-1/4. The accused has no where during
the trial denied the factum of business relation with the
complainant. Rather, he has accepted that he has account
maintained with the complainant. He also admitted the factum of
signing on the invoices i.e Ex CW1/3. Thus, the transaction with
the complainant is established . the accused has however, denied
receiving the said good in his Statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C the
delivery of goods to the accused is an admitted fact. accepted. The
invoices on record i.e Ex. CW-1/3 (colly) are thus not in dispute.
The only defence that accused raised was these goods were not
delivered. However, the accused has failed to bring any evidence
to the contrary, especially when he is admitting his signatures on
all the invoices on record. It is highly unreasonable for a business
URVI
Ct. Cases 536531/2016 Page No. 12/18 GUPTA
KALATMAK LADIES SUITS Vs. RAJESH VAISH Digitally signed
by URVI GUPTA
Date: 2026.02.16
15:47:19 +0530
man to sign on the receipt of goods without actually receiving
them. Hence, this defence of the accused is not tenable.
22. Furthermore, the accused has stated that the ledger on
record Ex. CW1/4, does not bear the correct details of the goods.
No document or ledger or statement has been produced on record
to question the authenticity of the document already on record. The
said record is also true in terms of the presumption raise under
S.114 Indian Evidence Act. Even if taken otherwise, the accused
has only submitted that the ledger has ‘incorrect details of the
cloth’. It is not the accused’s case that he is disputing the amount
mentioned in the ledger or even the factum of transaction. Accused
has submitted that the invoice was issued in the name of other
articles i.e unstitched fabric and not readymade goods which is
what was placed on order by him. Any reasonable business man is
expected to maintain their books of account with the party they are
dealing with. No such document has been placed by the accused
to disprove the documents, which are duly exhibited. These
documents are thus being read as true and correct in the eyes of
law.
23. It is the case of the accused that hat out of the goods
received by him , certain goods were returned and some were
defective. It is admitted by the accused that no written
communication about the said defective goods was made by him
to the complainant. He had contacted the complainant only
telephonically. However, no proof of such communication has
been placed by the accused despite opportunity. In the absence of
the same, it cannot be taken that the complainant was aware of the
Ct. Cases 536531/2016 Page No. 13/18
KALATMAK LADIES SUITS Vs. RAJESH VAISH URVI
GUPTA
Digitally signed by
URVI GUPTA
Date: 2026.02.16
15:47:26 +0530
return of goods or them being defective in nature, wherein he could
have taken some steps to rectify the defect, if any. Moreover, the
accused submitted that he has proof of return of certain articles to
the complainant, but despite the said submission, he has failed to
produce any such proof of return.
24. The other defence raised by the accused is that the cheque
was given only as security cheque to the complainant and he had
no due towards the complainant on the date of presentment, rather
he has to take some money from the complainant. It has been held
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sripati Singh v. State of
Jharkhand & Anr., (2021) SC, that a cheque given as security is
not excluded from the purview of Section 138 of the NI Act unless
it is proved that no liability subsisted at the time of its presentation.
Supreme Court has held that cheque issued as security cannot be
considered as a worthless piece of paper under every circumstance.
It is only when accused pays the amount within the time fixed by
the parties, cheque given as a security cannot be presented.
However, once, accused fails to make the payment within
stipulated time and the said time period is not extended by the
parties, cheques given for security can be presented for
encashment. In the present case, nothing significant is there on
record to show that liability of accused to pay the amount had been
discharged before the presentation of cheque, especially when
accused has admitted the transaction in question. The accused has
not been able to prove that no liability existed at the time of
presentation of the cheque in question by the complainant, his
defense of the cheque being given as security is also untenable.
Ct. Cases 536531/2016 Page No. 14/18
KALATMAK LADIES SUITS Vs. RAJESH VAISH
Digitally
signed by
URVI
URVI GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.02.16
15:47:30
+0530
25. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, it is admitted by the
accused that the cheque was handed over to the complainant for
business purposes. In his notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. accused has also
stated that he will have to check the account to infer the amount
due towards the complainant. It is admitted by him that all
particulars except the name of the payee have been filled by him
and one Mr. Rajesh Kumar. Thus, there comes no reason to believe
in the defence raised by the accused. He has failed to inspire the
confidence of this court in rebutting the presumption raised against
him under law.
26. The cheque in question is the name of ‘R R Designs’ of
which has been signed by the accused Mr. Rajesh Vaish and Mr.
Rajesh Kumar. The accused was made the only party in this case.
The accused has already admitted that he has signed the invoices
on record and hence he was involved in the day to day working of
R R designs. Though there are two signatories, the complainant
has made only one of the signatories i.e. the accused as a party to
present complaint. It has been settled by the Hon’;ble Supreme
Court in N. Harihara v. J. Thomas (2018) SC that it is the
prerogative of the complainant to choose the persons who,
according to him, were in charge of and responsible for the
conduct of the business. The proceedings cannot be quashed only
in the ground that some of signatories or partners have not been
summoned. Hence, a complaint can go on even if only one
signatory/ partner has been made a party to the complaint.
27. The fact that the present accused is an authorized signatory
and a partner is undisputed. The accused at hand has never raised
Ct. Cases 536531/2016 Page No. 15/18
Digitally
KALATMAK LADIES SUITS Vs. RAJESH VAISH signed by
URVI
URVI GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.02.16
15:47:38
+0530
any dispute about him not being a partner and an authorised
signatory. Rather, the accused had himself answered to the court
query on 15.10.2025 that R R Designs is a partnership firm, but
never disputed that he is not a partner or an authorized signatory.
The accused is involved in the day to day working of R R Designs,
in terms of S.141 NI Act, is evident from the record. The fact that
the other signatory has not been made a party has never been raised
or challenged by the accused. Even if raised, the said fact is not
fatal to the decision of the present complaint.
28. Furthermore to clarify on the aspect of the entity of the
firm and the role of the accused, the court had summoned bank
witness from the accused’s bank with the relevant record.
Thereafter, Sh. Guddu Kumar from HDFC Bank, Punjabi Bagh,
was examined as CW-X. He had brought duly stamped and signed
bank account statement of M/S RR Designs which was Ex. CW-
X2 and the account opening form which was Ex. CW-X1, (which
includes the partnership deed of M/S RR Designs). Perusal of both
these documents clarify that the M/S RR Designs is a partnership
firm having 3 partners and authorised signatories including the
accused Rajesh Vaish, who has duly signed on the documents.
29. Ld. LAC for the accused had raised the argument that the
partnership firm was never made a party to the present complaint,
despite being the drawer of the cheque and hence the complaint
cannot be successful. It has been recently clarified by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Dhanasingh Prabhu v. Chandrasekar and Anr
(2025 ) SC that if the accused is a partnership firm, then even if
the partnership firm has not been arraigned specifically as a party,
Ct. Cases 536531/2016 Page No. 16/18
KALATMAK LADIES SUITS Vs. RAJESH VAISH Digitally
signed by
URVI
URVI GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.02.16
15:47:43
+0530
complaint against partners is still maintainable.. It further
emphasizes on the fact that in case of a partnership firm, the
liability of the partners and firm is joint and several. This in itself
fortifies the fact of proceedings being continued only against a
single partner who is also the signatory without adding any other
person/entity, as in the present case, where, though the partnership
has not been made a separate party but one of the partner is being
prosecuted. Thus, this averment of the accused is further not
tenable in light of this judgment.
30. No allegations have been made by the accused to state that
the cheque has been misused by the complainant. Mere claims or
denials by the accused without evidence won’t suffice. It is a
settled law that every assertion needs to be supported with
evidence on record, which the accused has failed to produce. The
denial of the accused is, hence, not supported by any evidence on
record. He has failed to refute the allegations of fault on his part
nor has he brought any material in defence to show that he had no
liability towards the complainant. Mere denial of the
complainant’s allegations is insufficient to rebut the presumption
under the act. The burden of proof in terms of s. 102 Indian
Evidence Act has not been discharged by the accused.
31. The documents already on record which are duly Exhibited
have not been challenged by the accused. Despite the fact that the
accused had expressed his desire to lead evidence and even get
himself examined as witness, the accused has failed to lead any
kind of DE.
Ct. Cases 536531/2016 Page No. 17/18
KALATMAK LADIES SUITS Vs. RAJESH VAISH
URVI
GUPTA
Digitally signed
by URVI GUPTA
Date: 2026.02.16
15:47:49 +0530
32. In view of the above considerations, it can be said that
accused has failed to raise suspicion in the version narrated by the
complainant by way of cross-examination. The case of the
complainant has been consistent throughout the course of trial.
Therefore, in the result of the analysis of the present case, accused
Mr. Rajesh Vaish (Partner and Authorized Signatory of M/s R. R.
Designs) is hereby convicted of the offence punishable under
Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
33. This judgment contains Eighteen (18) pages and each page
bears the signature of the undersigned.
34. Copy of the judgment be uploaded as per rules.
35. Copy of this judgment be given to the convict free of cost
as per rules.
Pronounced in an open court today.
(URVI GUPTA)
J.M.F.C.-01(N.I.Act)/Central,
THC/Delhi/16.02.2026
Ct. Cases 536531/2016 Page No. 18/18
KALATMAK LADIES SUITS Vs. RAJESH VAISH
Digitally
signed by
URVI
URVI GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.02.16
15:47:57
+0530
