Interim Order 2

Order Details: Copy of Document.
Pdf Text: 11 C.C.No.749/SC/2022
CW-1 Exh.17
18. Whatever stated by me in my evidence affidavit is true
and correct and in token thereof I have signed the affidavit.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 16.10.2024 Judicial Magistrate(First Class)
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
Cross examination of CW-01- Mr. Sandeep Arora by advocate Mr.
Milind Gaware for the accused :
19. I am a graduate. I am a trader. No power of Attorney is
given in my favour by our partnership firm. Witness volunteers that I
myself is partner hence it is not required. Except me there are three
partners that is Ramesh Arora that is my father, Rita Arora my mother
and Mrs. Kanak Arora is my wife. Authority letter which at Exh.18 is
not signed by all the partners. It is not true to say that I am not having
original Deed of Partnership, hence, it is not produced on record. It is a
registered Partnership Deed. It is not true to say that original is lying
with Registrar of Firms. It is not true to say that it is wrongly stated in
my affidavit that original Deed of Partnership is lying with Registrar. It
is not true to say that Exh.17 is no concerned with the complainant
firm. Name of firm is not mentioned on it. I know Mr. Bhagwan
Motwani. I now him since last 5-6 years. It is true to say that he is
working as a agent for our firm. It is not true to say that Mr. Motwani
introduced number of customers to our firm. He has introduced only
one customer. I do not remember address of Mr. Motwani. On next
date I will mention his address.
20. It is true to say that the accused Mehul has not written any
letter to show that he is intending business with the complainant. It is
true to say that accused Mehul has not placed any written purchase
-- 1 of 11 --
12 C.C.No.749/SC/2022
CW-1 Exh.17
order to the complainant. It is true to say that invoices does not bear
the stamp of M/s. Aditi Creations. Witness volunteers that it is sent
through currier. It is true to say that in the complaint and affidavit it is
not mentioned it is sent through currier. It is not true to say that I am
deposing false. It is true to say that invoice number 6 dated
04.03.2015 Exh.38 and invoice number 7 dated 07.03.2015 Exh.39
does not bear the signature of the complainant. It is true to say that I
can not say on which invoice I have signed and on which invoice signed
by Ramesh Arora. It is not true to say that it is forged invoices
therefore, I am unable to say that who sign it. We prepared the invoices
two to three copies. It is true to say that material mentioned in the
invoices is required to be carried out by transport from one place to
another place. It is true to say that transporters gave the one copy of
invoices and one copy of delivery to the concerned party. Witness
volunteers that some time copy can not carry out by the transporters.
21. It is true to say that original Partnership Deed in the
Registrar of Firm. I did not get back the Partnership Deed from the
Registrar of Firm. It is not true to say that I have not shown the
original Partnership Deed to the Notary. It is not true to say that
Partnership Deed is forged document. Now Exh.17 is shown to me. I
require to check that name of Partnership firm is not mentioned on it.
Now Exh.37 is shown to me. I will give the answer on next date as to
why Exh.37 does not bear seal and signature of our firm. (Witness is
directed to give the proper answer as he is the complainant. If he give
the evasive answer, he has to suffer the consequences.). It is not true to
say that Exh.37 is forged document. Today I have no original
Partnership Deed. My father is also one of the partner and sitting in
the court. I have not written any letter demanding the payment to the
-- 2 of 11 --
13 C.C.No.749/SC/2022
CW-1 Exh.17
accused. It is not true to say that I first time seen the accused in the
court. It is true to say that I have no any document to show t hat the
accused is the proprietor of Aditi Creation. Exh.38 does not bear seal
and signature of our firm. Exh.38 is not signed above the customer
signature. Caption of seal and signature of customer is also blank.
22. It is true to say that other partner has not given any other
authority letter to me except authority letter at Exh.18 dated
01.01.2016. It is true to say that I have not demanded another
authority letter to my partners except authority letter at Exh.18 dated
01.01.2016. R.R.Textline World Wide is a company and Roberto
Rossellili Fashion Collection is brand name. It is not true to say that the
complainant never did business by the name of Roberto Rossellili
Fashion Collection.
23. Roberto Rossellili Fashion Collection brand is not registered
brand of complainant company. It is not true to say that I have not run
any business in the name of Roberto Rossellili Fashion Collection. I had
done documentation with so many parties by the aforesaid brand
name. It is true to say that the name of signatory of the authority letter
Exh.18 is not mentioned in said document. The same is signed by my
father Ramesh Arora and mother Rita Arora. There is one another
partner in the firm. My wife Kanak Arora is also partner alongwith my
mother and father. I do not remember whether my wife third partner of
the firm has given me authority to file complaint and depose on behalf
of the complainant firm. I do not remember whether my wife had
prepared or not any document in respect of present case. Our
partnership firm maintains inward and outward register. It is true to
say that there is no outward number on document Exh.18 authority
-- 3 of 11 --
14 C.C.No.749/SC/2022
CW-1 Exh.17
letter. I can produce the certified copy of Registrar of Firm in respect of
Partnership Firm. It is not true to say that I never authorised by the
complainant to represent the complaint.
24. It is true to say that we used to send the sold goods
alongwith delivery challan of our company. Complainant company is
maintaining record of delivery of goods. The complainant company
sends the goods from Bhiwandi. It is true to say that I have not
produced the delivery challans alongwith respective invoices. It is not
true to say that complainant do not possess any delivery challan
showing receiving goods by Aditi Creation. It is true to say that there is
no seal of Aditi Creation over any of invoices filed by me. I can not
produce the currier slips where by I sent the delivery challan and
invoices to the accused. It is true to say that I can not tell the name of
currier company. It is not true to say that I am deposing false that I sent
the invoices by currier to the accused.
25. The invoice Exh.19 is prepared by our Accountant. I
myself gave instructions to the accountant in respect of invoice Exh.19.
It is not true to say that, “Santosh Packing, Bootawala Building, Ground
Floor, Old Hanuman Lane, Kalbadevi, Mumbai” is not the address of
Aditi Creation. It is true to say that I possess no document with me to
show that above address is address of Aditi Creation. It is true to say
that I have no document to show that Aditi Creation instructed to
deliver the goods on aforesaid address. It is true to say that there is no
seal of Aditi Creation on invoice Exh.19. It is not true to say that there
is nothing on document Exh.19 to show that goods were received on
behalf of Aditi Creation.
-- 4 of 11 --
15 C.C.No.749/SC/2022
CW-1 Exh.17
26. It is true to say that the invoice Exh.38, Exh.39 is not
signed by any person of the complainant. It is not true to say that I
have produced the false and fabricated invoices. It is not true to say
that therefore, there is seal of Aditi Creation on any of the invoice. My
earlier statement that invoices are signed by our Accountant is also
correct in addition to my statement in evidence affidavit that I and my
partner Ramesh Arora signed the invoices.
27. It is true to say that Mr. Bhagwan Motiyani is working as
an agent. It is true to say that Mr. Motiyani accepts orders from various
traders.
28. It is not true to say that accused No.1 Mehul Rambhiya has
not signed any of the document produced by me. It is not true to say
that accused No.1 Mehul Rambhiya is not liable to pay me any amount.
It is true to say that in the year 2015 and 2016 I was in a custody of
cheque nos.298, 299, 322, 328, 329, 300, 336, 351, 352, 353, 354, 356
of Bank of Baroda. It is not true to say that accused No.1 Mehul
Rambhiya had never made any deal with me. It is not true to say that
accused No.1 is not the proprietor of Aditi Creation. It is not true to
say that I never met accused No.1 Mehul Rambhiya. It is not true to say
that I never met any of the family member of Mehul Rambhiya. It is not
true to say that the disputed cheques or above referred cheques were
never given by Mehul Rambhiya to me at any point of time. It is not
true to say that said cheques do not bears the signature of Mehul
Rambhiya. It is not true to say that aforesaid cheques came into my
custody through Bhawan Motiyani. It is not true to say that Mehul
Rambhiya was never liable to pay Rs.13,54,235/- to the complainant. It
is not true to say that accused No.1 and 2 never received demand
-- 5 of 11 --
16 C.C.No.749/SC/2022
CW-1 Exh.17
notice. It is not true to say that neither the cheques belongs to Mehul
Rambhiya nor said account is maintained by him. It is not true to say
that I have filed false complaint against Mehul Rambhiya.
29. It is true to say that I have not produce the document to
show dispatching goods from Bhiwandi to the accused. I am in
possession of Lorry receipt. I have brought with me the Lorry receipt. I
am producing the same. It is true to say there is no stamp of receiver of
the goods but it is not true to say that there is no signature of receiver
on the LRs produced by me today. I do not remember whether I had
given or not given instructions as to the Lorry receipts to my advocate
while presenting the complaint. It is not true to say that the Lorry
Receipt produced by me at Exh.51 to 55 in C.C.No.228/SS/2016 are
forged. It is true to say that the description of goods mentioned on the
invoices is not mentioned on Lorry receipts. It is true to say that on
Lorry receipt Exh.52 the name of consignor is not R.R.Textline World
Wide. It is true to say that there is over writing on Lorry receipt Exh.52
in the name of consignor. I can not tell without verifying record that
whether we had generated the invoice on 02.03.2015 that is on the
date of Lorry receipt. The invoice number is 347 on the Lorry receipt
Exh.52 now shown to me. I can not tell whether I have not produced
the same invoice which is mentioned on Lorry Receipt Exh.52. It is not
true to say that I have not produced the invoices which are mentioned
in the Lorry receipts. I do not remember whether we had sent or not
delivery challans alongwith Lorry receipt. It is not true to say that we
have not delivered any goods to Aditi Creation. It is not true to say that
therefore the delivery challan number and invoice numbers are not
mentioned on the Lorry receipts. It is true to say that the address
mentioned on the Lorry receipt is of Hanuman Galli. It is true to say
-- 6 of 11 --
17 C.C.No.749/SC/2022
CW-1 Exh.17
that the address of Aditi Creation is not at Hanuman Galli. It is true to
say that I do not possess any document to show that Aditi Creation had
its office or packing department at Hanuman Galli. It is not true to say
that all the Lorry receipts are forged and therefore, there is overwriting
on each Lorry receipt.
30. It is true to say that Mr. Motwani is an agent for all
manufacturers, sellers and retailers. I do not know meaning of
mediator. Therefore, I can not tell whether Motwani was working as
Mediator. He was an Agent. It is not true to say that Mr. Motwani was
not Agent for Aditi Creation. Today I forgotten to bring address of Mr.
Motawani but I can produce his address. It is not true to say that
subject cheques were given by Mr. Motwani to me.
31. It is true to say that I have never made transaction or
business with wife of Mehul Rambia.
Question : You have not delivered goods to wife of Mehul Rambia at
any point of time?
Answer : I never met with wife of Mehul Rambia.
Question : The cheques on the basis of which I have filed case are not
belonging to account of Mehul Rambia?
Answer : I can not tell whether it is not of account of Mehul Rambia.
It is not true to say that there is no signature of Mehul
Rambia on the disputed cheque.
32. The Exh.52 and 53 shows name of consignor as New
Poonam. New Poonam is a Proprietory Firm and my father is it’s
Proprietor. It is true to say that accounts of New Poonam and
-- 7 of 11 --
18 C.C.No.749/SC/2022
CW-1 Exh.17
R.R.Texline are maintained separately. It is true to say that Ramesh
Arora has not given me authority to file case on behalf of New Poonam
or produce his documents. It is true to say that no bill is raised in the
name of New Poonam for Aditi Creation. It is not true to say that Aditi
Creation is not liable to pay Rs.13,54,235/- to R.R.Textline. It is not
true to say that there is no legal liability to pay said amount by Aditi
Creation to R.R.Textline. It is not true to say that I have filed false case.
On oral request of the advocate for the accused cross
examination is deferred till next date.
R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 16.10.2024 Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code :MH01362
-- 8 of 11 --
19 C.C.No.749/SC/2022
CW-1 Exh.17
Date : 15.10.2025
Resumed on S.A.
Further cross examination of CW-01- Mr. Sandeep Arora by advocate
Mr. Milind Gaware for the accused :
33. A document placed by me at Exh.19 is my authorization.
Complainant M/s. R.R. Texline Worldwide Partnership Firm has
prepared such document of authorization like Exh.19 even prior to
20.10.2022 in my favour. I do not remember the date of said document.
Said document was prepared by me advocate and I have signed it. On
said document myself, my wife my father and my mother have
executed signatures.
34. It is true to say that I have also filed case
No.2115/SS/2016 in present court. I can not tell which cheques were
filed by me in said case. I do not recollect the cheque numbers. It is
true to say that I have filed cheques bearing Nos.000352, 000353,
000354 and 000356. It is true to say that in present case I have filed
cheques bearing Nos.000336, 000329, 000328 and 000322. It is not
true to say that I was fully aware that the cheques of said series of
numbers were returned unpaid for the reason ‘Account Blocked’.
35. I can not tell or judge that the ink of signature is different
than the ink of other contents of all disputed cheques now shown to me
and produced at Exhs.20, 22, 24, 26. It is not true to say that I have no
authority to file present complaint against accused on behalf of M/s.
R.R. Texline Worldwide. It is not true to say that all these cheques were
given by middleman Mr. Bhagwan Motvani in the year 2016 to me. It is
not true to say that all cheques were blank except signature. It is not
true to say that I have filled in rest of the contents of all cheques. It is
not true to say that those cheques were never given by accused No.2
-- 9 of 11 --
20 C.C.No.749/SC/2022
CW-1 Exh.17
Mehul Rambhia to me. It is not true to say that accused is not liable to
make me any payment. It is not true to say that accused No.2 Mehul
Rambhia is not concerned with accused No.1 Aditi Creation. It is not
true to say that accused No.2 is not proprietor of accused No.1 at
relevant time. It is not true to say that the signatures on the cheques is
not of accused No.2. It is not true to say that I am deposing false that I
sold and supplied material worth Rs. 13,54,235/- to the accused. It is
not true to say that accused No.2 neither received any material or
goods from me nor made signature in acknowledgment of receiving
goods. It is not true to say that I am deposing false that I deposited the
cheques as per instructions of the accused. It is not true to say that I
have not sent any demand notice to the accused. It is not true to say
that the address of the accused mentioned by me in complaint, notice is
not the correct address of the accused. It is not true to say that I have
filed false case. It is not true to say that there is no legal liability
towards accused.
Cross examination is over.
No Re-examination.
R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 15.10.2025 Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code :MH01362
-- 10 of 11 --
21 C.C.No.749/SC/2022
CW-1 Exh.17
CERTIFICATE
I affirm that the contents of this P.D.F. file evidence are same, word to word as per
the original evidence.
Name of Stenographer : Mrs. Aditi Ravikiran Dalvi
Court : Judicial Magistrate(First Class), 58th Court, Bandra,
Mumbai.
Dictated in open court on : 15.10.2025.
Transcribed and Typed on : 15.10.2025.
Order printed and Signed on : 15.10.2025.
Order Uploaded on : 15.10.2025.
-- 11 of 11 --