Skip to main content

Court summons pvt company for cheating Delhi-based hotel ‘

New Delhi, Apr 7 (PTI) A Delhi court has summoned two companies and their representatives for allegedly cheating a private hotel here in the guise of providing a loan of Rs 200 crore.

Metropolitan Magistrate Tarunpreet Kaur directed the accused – City Fincorp Services, Advance City Fincorp Consultancy Pvt. Ltd and their officials Ajay Virmani, Subhash Sharma, Ravi Kumar, Sapan Dhawan, Dinesh Sharma and Lalit Kumar – to appear before the court on September 1.

The court was hearing a complaint filed by Joy Hotel Resort Pvt. Ltd, which claimed the accused misrepresented City Fincorp Services as a firm linked to CitiCorp Finance (India) Ltd, a reputed financial services company, as the names if the two resembled.



The complaint alleged that the accused had cheated the complainant of Rs 12.5 lakh.

The arguments on point of summoning have been heard and the record has been perused.

“In view of the pre-summoning evidence led by the complainant company and the submissions made, the present complaint stands allowed and the undersigned takes cognizance of offence under section 420/406 IPC,” the judge said in an order passed on March 31.

Advocate Vijay Aggarwal, who appeared for the complainant, claimed in 2015, the accused came to know that the complainant company was in dire need of money and offered a loan from City Fincorp Service, Ajmer, claiming it was a part of CitiCorp Finance (India) Limited.

During the process the accused asked for Rs 12.5 lakh, which was paid by the complainant in good faith, he said.

The accused later informed the complainant that the loan was sanctioned and will be disbursed. They showed the copy of sanction letter and induced the victim into giving post-dated cheques, he said.

The complainant company, however, later received a letter informing it that the loan cannot be sanctioned, he added.

The complainant learned upon enquiry that City Fincorp Service, Ajmer was not a part of CitiCorp Finance (India) Limited and also no license was issued to it by the Reserve Bank of India for functioning as a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC), he added. PTI UK SK SK


https://theprint.in/india/court-summons-pvt-company-for-cheating-delhi-based-hotel/1505039/

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Vijay Aggarwal Advocate Internship News

Golden opportunity  to get  Vijay Aggarwal Advocate Internship . Get trained under the guidance of senior people. Law/ Legal -  Metropolitan Law Firm START DATE -  As early as  DURATION -  1 Month COMPENSATION - Certification APPLY BY -  Earliest About Internship With  vijay aggarwal metropolitan law firm Those who will be selected will manage day-to-day responsibilities like handling research-based work. Mentored by senior advocates and lawyers.  Who can apply for  vijay aggarwal's metropolitan law firm Should be good at multitask  Should be available for 30 days  Should possesses  skills and interests Perks Certification Number of openings 3
Read more

Delhi HC stays trial court proceedings in NI Act against a businessman

New Delhi [India], February 5 (ANI): The Delhi High Court has stayed proceedings before the trial court in section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act against a businessman in a complaint filed by TCI XPS, a division of Transport Corporation of India Ltd.   Businessman Arun Jain, erstwhile Director of Lilliput Kidswear Ltd. had prayed for the quashing of the summoning order and the complaint in the petition filed by him. The bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in an order passed on Feb 1, 2023, has issued notice to the respondent and said, “In the meanwhile, the Trial Court is requested to adjourn the matter to a date later than the date fixed by this Court.” Advocates Ayush Jindal and RK Gossain appeared for the businessman and submitted that the complaint was not maintainable since the cheque in question was presented by the complainant after the accused company was ordered to be wound up. It was also submitted that the material on record reveals that the petitioner could not have b...
Post a Comment
Read more