Cheque Bounce Case during Pendency of Insolvency Proceedings in NCLT | Pankaj Kumar & Co. | A Law Firm

  

Latest news March 16, 2019 644

It has been held in a number of cases that a Cheque Bounce Case u/s 138 NI Act can be filed and continued even during pendency of Insolvency Proceedings before NCLT. Recent Judgement of Bombay High Court in which reference has been given to few other case laws are as under:





(Equivalent Citation:- 2018(4) RCR 188)



I (2019) BC 669 (Bom.)



BOMBAY HIGH COURT



Vibha Kankanwadi, J.



RAJEEV RAJ KUMAR & ORS.—Applicants



versus



STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.—Respondents



Crl. Application Nos. 02052 and 02055 of 2018—Decided on 31.8.2018



Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Sections 138, 141 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Dishonour of cheque — Offence by company — Accused Nos. 2 to 12 had not issued cheque but somebody else is signatory to cheque — All things which happened before National Company Law Tribunal not put before Magistrate when complaint was filed and order of issuance of process was passed — In Form ‘B’ complainant has not whispered that such cheques were given by responsible officer of accused No. 1 — Some cloud has been created on issuance of cheque — Magistrate ought to have considered as to who is signatory to cheque and whether he is made an accused or not before proceeding to issue process against accused Nos. 2 to 12 — It was necessary for complainant to specifically aver and demonstrate as to how each one of the accused Nos. 2 to 12 were responsible for conduct of business of accused No. 1 — Order of issuance of process passed by Magistrate cannot be allowed to be sustained and set aside.



(Paras" target="_blank" class="updatelink">Click here 10 to 15)



Result : Applications allowed.



Cases referred :



1. N.K. Wahi v. Shekhar Singh & Others, II (2007) BC 438 (SC)=III (2007) SLT 543=138 (2007) DLT 783 (SC)=II (2007) DLT (CRL.) 86 (SC)=II (2007) CCR 63 (SC). (Relied)

(Para 7)

2. Aparna A. Shah v. M/s. Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Another, III (2013) BC 491 (SC)=VI (2013) SLT 523=III (2013) DLT (CRL.) 696 (SC)=III (2013) CCR 287 (SC). (Relied)

(Para 7)

3. M.L. Gupta & Another v. Ceat Financial Services Ltd., 136 (2007) DLT 308=I (2007) CLT 97. (Relied)

(Para 7)

4. Indorama Synthetics (I) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Others, Criminal Writ Petition No. 1280 of 2010, decided on 14.3.2018. (Referred)

(Para 8)

5. Firth (India) Steel Company Ltd. (In liquidation) v. Respondent, 1995 (5) Bom.CR 907. (Referred)

(Para 8)

6. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd. v. P. Mohanraj & Others, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 306 of 2018. (Referred)

(Para 8)

7. BSI Ltd. & Another v. Gift Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Another, II (2000) SLT 184=I (2000) BC 292 (SC)=84 (2000) DLT 115 (SC)=I (2000) CCR 226 (SC). (Referred)

(Para 8)

8. Bholu Ram v. State of Punjab & Another, VII (2008) SLT 148=III (2008) DLT (CRL.) 870 (SC)=III (2008) CCR 447 (SC). (Referred)

(Para 9)

9. S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and Another, II (2007) BC 521 (SC)=III (2007) SLT 143=I (2007) DLT (CRL.) 972 (SC). (Relied)

(Para 12)



Counsel for the Parties :



For the Applicants : Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Sr. Advocate, instructed by Mr. S.V. Natu, Advocate.



For the Respondent No. 1 : Mr. K.D. Munde, Addl. Public Prosecutor.



For the Respondent No. 2 : Mr. R.R. Totia, Advocate.



JUDGMENT



Vibha Kankanwadi, J.—Since both the parties are same in both the proceedings and on similar grounds, the proceedings are challenged, both these matters are disposed of by this common judgment.



2. Both these applications have been filed invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in order to quash and set aside the order of issuance of process and the proceedings filed against the applicants by respondent No. 2, before learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Court No. 7, Aurangabad. Criminal Application No. 2052 of 2018 challenges the order of issuance of process passed on 16.11.2017 and proceedings in Summary Criminal Case No. 7882 of 2017. Criminal Application No. 2055 of 2018 challenges the order of issuance of process passed on 2.11.2017 and proceedings in Summary Criminal Case No. 7504 of 2017. Both the proceedings are filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [For short, hereinafter referred to as “N.I. Act”].



3. Respondent No. 2 - original complainant had come with a case, that it is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and it is a leading company in alloy steel plant in western India, specialized in manufacturing of carbon, alloy and special steel products in round, square, flats and special profiles. Accused No. 1 is also a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in business of producing wide range forging, iron and aluminium casting, machining and sub-assemblies products. It has been contended that accused Nos. 2 to 12 i.e. present applicants are directors of accused No. 1 - company and they are incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of accused No. 1 - company. Accused No. 1, through the Directors - accused Nos. 2 to 12 had approached the complainant with a request for supply of rolled steel products on credit and as per the invoices, the product was supplied. The complainant has maintained account in its regular course of business. Huge amount is outstanding from accused No. 1. In order to discharge the legally enforceable debt or liability, accused Nos. 1 to 12 issued cheques drawn on Andhra Bank, Sachapir Street, Pune. In S.C.C. No. 7882 of 2017, the cheque was bearing No. 000694, dated 6.8.2017, for an amount of Rs. 25,64,677/-, and in S.C.C. No. 7504 of 2017, the cheque was bearing No. 000693, dated 4.8.2017, for Rs. 14,93,915/-. Both the cheques were presented by the complainant in its Bank i.e. Punjab National Bank, Aurangapura Branch, Aurangabad, for encashment. However, both of them were returned with remark ‘funds insufficient’. Statutory notice was issued on 20th September, 2017 and 24th August, 2017, respectively, in both the matters. Though the notice was duly served on accused Nos. 1 to 12, it was not complied with and, therefore, the complaint was filed stating that all the accused persons have committed offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the N.I. Act.



4. After taking into consideration the contents of the complaint, documents placed on record and examination of the complainant under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., as well as after hearing the complainant, the learned Magistrate has issued process against all the accused persons on 16.11.2017 and 2.11.2017, respectively. These orders as well as entire proceedings have been challenged by these applications.



5. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. R.N. Dhorde, instructed by learned Advocate Mr. S.V. Natu, for the applicants. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutors, Mr. K.D. Munde and Mr. A.A. Jagatkar, for respondent No. 1. So also, heard learned Advocate Mr. R.R. Totla for respondent No. 2 - original complainant.



6. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicants, that the complainant had not placed on record, all the relevant information before the learned Magistrate. In fact, a petition under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was initiated by the Corporation Bank against accused No. 1 before the National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench at Chandigarh. An order came to be passed on 27.7.2017, whereby by way of interim order, Mr. Dinkar Tiruvannadapuram Venkatsubramanian was appointed as Interim Resolution Professional [For short, “I.R.P.”]. He was appointed for a period of 30 days and further directions were given, that I.R.P. shall cause a public announcement within three days as contemplated under Regulation 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 of the initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process in terms of Section 13(1)(b) of the ‘Code’ read with Section 15 calling for the submission of claims against ‘corporate debtor’. On the same day, by a different order, the petition was admitted, declaring moratorium prohibiting, (a) the institution of suits or continuation or pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any Court of Law, Tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority; (b) transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the corporate debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein; (c) any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the corporate debtor in respect of its property including any action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002). Thereafter, the publication was made by I.R.P. A letter was also issued by accused No. 1 on 17th August, 2017 to the National Company Law Tribunal, giving list of claims for accused No. 1. Name of the complainant was at serial No. 189. A letter was issued by I.R.P. to Andhra Bank, Camp Branch, Pune, on 29.7.2017, whereby he informed about his appointment by the National Company Law Tribunal and the intention to propose change in authorized signatories due to the orders and a specific statement was made that the presentation of any cheques should not be allowed by the Bank in respect of the accounts until further directions from I.R.P. Further, the complainant - company had given its claim to I.R.P. as per form ‘B’ which was for the proof of claim by operational creditors on 8.8.2017. Under such circumstance, the complainant - company was not justified in presenting the cheque for encashment. Accused Nos. 2 to 12 cannot be said to be the persons who can be responsible for the dishonour of the cheque. He also submitted that the learned Magistrate failed to consider that in the complaint, the complainant has not given the details as to which director was responsible for the day-to-day affairs. Only omnibus statement has been made that all the accused were in-charge and responsible for the conduct of the affairs of accused No. 1. It is not a sufficient compliance of Section 141 of the N.I. Act.



7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicants relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N.K. Wahi v. Shekhar Singh & Others, II (2007) BC 438 (SC)=III (2007) SLT 543=138 (2007) DLT 783 (SC)=II (2007) DLT (CRL.) 86 (SC)=II (2007) CCR 63 (SC)=AIR 2007 SC 1454, wherein it has been held, that “Complaint must contain specific allegations against Directors as to how Directors are in-charge and responsible for conduct of business of company. The description should be clear. Mere allegations in complaint that accused persons are directors and responsible officers of the company, is not sufficient to take cognizance of the offence”.



He further relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Aparna A. Shah v. M/s. Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Another, III (2013) BC 491 (SC)=VI (2013) SLT 523=III (2013) DLT (CRL.) 696 (SC)=III (2013) CCR 287 (SC)=AIR 2013 SC 3210, wherein it has been observed, that “Drawer of the cheque alone can be prosecuted. The accused, who is not the drawer of the cheque, as he or she has not signed the same, the criminal proceedings are required to be quashed”.



He also relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of M.L. Gupta & Another v. Ceat Financial Services Ltd., 136 (2007) DLT 308=I (2007) CLT 97=(2008) 145 CC 837. The Single Bench of Delhi High Court has held, that “The complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act cannot be filed as on the date of presentation of the cheque, the company was in liquidation and cannot be stated to have committed any offence. Even second and third accused were not the in-charge of the day-to-day affairs and conduct of the business of the company on that date”.



He, therefore, prayed for quashing of the proceedings by submitting that the learned Magistrate failed to consider all these facts.



8. Per contra, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 2 has submitted that there is no bar for prosecuting the company and the responsible persons for the offence punishable under Sections 138 and 141 of the N.I. Act, though the proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 were initiated or the company was under liquidation. He relied on the decision of this Court at principal seat, given in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1280 of 2010, M/s. Indorama Synthetics (I) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Others, on 14th March 2018. Reliance was placed in that matter, on the decision of Division Bench in the case of Firth (India) Steel Company Ltd. (In liquidation) v. Respondent, 1995 (5) Bom.CR 907, wherein it was declared that, “The embargo created on the right of a party who initiated criminal proceedings particularly for an offence punishable under Sections 138 and 141 of the N.I. Act will not operate, as said proceedings are not within the meaning of expression ‘suit or other proceedings’.



He also submitted that the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in the matter of Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd. v. P. Mohanraj & Others [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 306 of 2018] has passed an order on 31.7.2018, that “Section 138 of the N.I. Act is a penal provision, which empowers the Court of competent jurisdiction to pass order of imprisonment or fine, which cannot be held to be proceeding or any judgment or decree of money claim.” Therefore, he submitted that there was no embargo for filing the complaint.



He also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. BSI Ltd. & Another v. Gift Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Another, II (2000) SLT 184=I (2000) BC 292 (SC)=84 (2000) DLT 115 (SC)=I (2000) CCR 226 (SC)=2000 102(3) Bom.L.R. 202 (SC), wherein completion of offence was before commencement of proceedings under Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act. It was observed that “A criminal prosecution is neither for recovery of money nor for enforcement of any security etc. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a penal provision the commission of which offence entails a conviction and sentence on proof of the guilt in a duly conducted criminal proceedings. Once the offence under Section 138 is completed the prosecution proceedings can be initiated not for recovery of the amount covered by the cheque but for bringing the offender to the penal liability”.



He submitted that the said provision under Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 i.e. Section 22(1) is pari materia to Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. He further submitted that the contents of the complaint were perused by the learned Magistrate and when he found that statements are made in respect of the responsibility and liability of the other other accused persons, the process has been issued.



9. It will not be out of place to mention here, that upon query by the Bench, that who has signed the disputed cheques, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 2 has filed the true photo-copy of the cheques in both the matters which are marked as “X”.



It was also submitted by respondent No. 2, that the said cheque had been signed by Financial Manager. Thereupon, again a query was made, as to whether he is an accused in the case. It is submitted that he is not made accused at this stage, but relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Bholu Ram v. State of Punjab & Another, VII (2008) SLT 148=III (2008) DLT (CRL.) 870 (SC)=III (2008) CCR 447 (SC)=(2008) 9 SCC 140, he submitted that when it appears during trial/recording of evidence, that a person has committed an offence who is not an accused, can be tried together with the accused by invoking the powers under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C.



10. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicants, it can be seen that they want to challenge the proceedings on two counts, first in respect of the proceedings which were taken up against them by Corporation Bank before the National Company Law Tribunal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the other ground is that they were not responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company and the basic ingredients have not been followed in view of the decision in N.K. Wahi’s case (supra). As regards first point is concerned, no doubt, all those things which had happened before the National Company Law Tribunal were not put before the learned Magistrate when the complaint was filed and the order of issuance of process was passed. Each and every complainant is expected to be fair in prosecution and, therefore, the circumstances in which the cheque came to be issued in favour of the complainant ought to have been disclosed by the complainant. The prohibitory orders and appointment of I.R.P. were made by the National Company Law Tribunal on 24.7.2017. As aforesaid, all the affairs of the company i.e. accused No. 1 were taken over by I.R.P. Even said I.R.P. had given instructions to the Bank in which accused No. 1 was having account, that henceforth the transactions would be governed under the powers of I.R.P. and the said letter was given on 29.7.2017. Prior to that, accused No. 1 had given list of claims including the name of the complainant to the National Company Law Tribunal on 17.8.2017. In view of the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, proof of claim in Form “B” was submitted by the complainant on 8.8.2017.



11. In both the cases, the complainant has come with a case that the respective cheques were issued on 6th August, 2017 and 4th August, 2017, respectively, that means, prior to Form “B” submitted by it to I.R.P. on 8.8.2017. Thus, it can be said that if the complainant had knowledge about the proceedings and the prohibitory orders, whether cheque would have been issued by the Finance Officer or Advisor or Manager of accused No. 1, is a question. Further, though the cheques were given on the aforesaid dates, the cheque in S.C.C. No. 7882 of 2017 was presented by the complainant for encashment on 11.9.2017. That means, with full knowledge that I.R.P. has taken over the affairs of accused No. 1, the said cheque was presented. In Form “B”, the complainant has not whispered that such cheques were given by the responsible officer of accused No. 1. Therefore, definitely, some cloud has been created on the issuance of cheque. No doubt, all these facts would be required to be addressed by the trial Court at the time of final hearing. As regards the legal position about maintainability of the complaint is concerned, it can still be kept open for the simple reason that the proceedings is also instituted against accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 is not a party in this proceedings.



12. Now, turning towards the second point, it is to be noted that as regards accused Nos. 2 to 12, only at two places, same statement has been made by the complainant, that they are the directors of accused No. 1, who are in-charge and responsible for the conduct of the affairs of the company. The complainant has not given what is the nomenclature and how each one of accused Nos. 2 to 12 is incharge. Admittedly, accused Nos. 2 to 12 are not the signatories to the disputed cheques. In fact, in para No. 5 of the complaint, the complainant has stated that accused Nos. 1 to 12 issued a cheque ..... None of them i.e. accused Nos. 2 to 12 had issued that cheque but somebody else is the signatory to the cheque. This fact is also suppressed by the complainant. The learned Magistrate ought to have considered as to who is the signatory to the cheque and whether he is made an accused or not before proceeding to issue process against accused Nos. 2 to 12. In N.K. Wahi’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has relied on the decision in the case of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and Another, II (2007) BC 521 (SC)=III (2007) SLT 143=I (2007) DLT (CRL.) 972 (SC)=2005 (8) SCC 89, wherein it was held thus:



“To sum up, there is almost unanimous judicial opinion that necessary averments ought to be contained in a complaint before a person can be subjected to criminal process. A liability under Section 141 of the Act is sought to be fastened vicariously on a person connected with a company, the principal accused being the company itself. It is a departure from the rule in criminal law against vicarious liability. A clear case should be spelled out in the complaint against the person sought to be made liable. Section 141 of the Act contains the requirements for making a person liable under the said provision. That the respondent falls within the parameters of Section 141 has to be spelled out. A complaint has to be examined by the Magistrate in the first instance on the basis of averments contained therein. If the Magistrate is satisfied that there are averments which bring the case within Section 141, he would issue the process. We have seen that merely being described as a director in a company is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of Section 141. Even a non-director can be liable under Section 141 of the Act. The averments in the complaint would also serve the purpose that the person sought to be made liable would know what is the case which is alleged against him. This will enable him to meet the case at the trial. ”



Further, taking into consideration the legal fiction that has been created in Section 141 of the N.I. Act, in para 19 of the judgment, it has been held thus :



“19.

In view of the above discussion, our answers to the questions posed in the reference are as under :

(a)

It is necessary to specifically aver in a complaint under Section 141 that at the time the offence was committed, the person accused was in charge of, and responsible for the conduct of business of the company. This averment is an essential requirement of Section 141 and has to be made in a complaint. Without this averment being made in a complaint, the requirements of Section 141 cannot be said to be satisfied.

(b)

The answer to the question posed in sub-para (b) has to be in the negative. Merely being a director of a company is not sufficient to make the person liable under Section 141 of the Act. A Director in a company cannot be deemed to be in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. The requirement of Section 141 is that the person sought to be made liable should be in- charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time. This has to be averred as a fact as there is no deemed liability of a director in such cases.

(c)

The answer to Question (c) has to be in the affirmative. The question notes that the Managing Director or Joint Managing Director would be admittedly incharge of the company and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. When that is so, holders of such positions in a company become liable under Section 141 of the Act. By virtue of the office they hold as Managing Director or Joint Managing Director, these persons are incharge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the company. Therefore, they get covered under Section 141. So far as the signatory of a cheque which is dishonoured is concerned, he is clearly responsible for the incriminating act and will be covered under Sub-section (2) of Section 141.”



13. Therefore, taking into consideration the above said legal position, it was necessary for the complainant to specifically aver and demonstrate as to how each one of accused Nos. 2 to 12 were incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of accused No. 1. Therefore, the order of issuance of process passed by the learned Magistrate cannot be allowed to be sustained.



14. Another point that is also required to be considered is that the address of accused Nos. 2 to 12 is given at the address of accused No. 1. No doubt, company’s address can be the address of the directors and even statutory notice was also issued to accused Nos. 2 to 12 on the address of accused No. 1. The point that is also required to be considered is, as to whether after I.R.P. has taken over the affairs of the business of accused No. 1 - company, it can be said that the address of accused No. 1 would be the address of accused Nos. 2 to 12. Knowledge of issuance of cheque, presentation of the same and dishonour of the same, could have been only on the basis of the statutory notice to the accused Nos. 2 to 12. Acceptance of the notices to them by some of the employees, whether can be attributed as knowledge of accused Nos. 2 to 12, was also a question which ought to have been considered even at the prima facie stage by the learned Magistrate. However, mainly for the second point, regarding absence of specific averments, the order of process passed against the present applicants, deserves to be set aside.



15. Hence, the following order :



(a)

The applications are hereby allowed.

(b)

The orders of issuance of process passed on 16.11.2017 in Summary Criminal Case No. 7882 of 2017 and on 2.11.2017 in Summary Criminal Case No. 7504 of 2017, by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Court No. 7, Aurangabad, as well as both the proceedings are hereby quashed and set aside as against the present applicants i.e. original accused Nos. 2 to 12.

(c)

Consequently, the orders of issuance of non-bailable warrants against accused Nos. 2 to 12 stand quashed and set aside.

(d)

It is clarified, that the matter before the trial Court shall proceed as against accused No. 1.



Applications allowed.


Get in Touch

IN

PANKAJ KUMAR & CO.

(1) Chamber No. 1104, Rohini Court, Delhi-110085 (India)
(2) Chamber No. T-25, 1st Floor, Tehsil Lane, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi-110054 (India)
(3) Chamber No. 111, Lawyers' Chamber, Saket Court, New Delhi (India)
(4) Lawyer Chamber, Dwarka Court, New Delhi (India)


Contact Us Now
+91 8800543454 | +91 9871083454

advpk1@gmail.com

Category : CONSULTANTS


Timings
MON :
TUE :
WED :
THU :
FRI :
SAT :
SUN :

Write to Us


Write to Us


DIVORCE LAWYER IN ROHINI
DIVORCE LAWYER IN TIS HAZARI COURT
DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN ROHINI COURT
DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN PITAMPURA
DIVORCE LAWYER IN PITAMPURA
DIVORCE LAWYER IN PASCHIM VIHAR
DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN PASCHIM VIHAR
BEST DIVORCE LAWYER IN ROHINI
BEST DIVORCE LAWYER IN DELHI
BEST DIVORCE LAWYERS IN DELHI
BEST DIVORCE ADVOCATES IN DELHI
BEST DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN TIS HAZARI COURT
BEST DIVORCE LAWYER IN TIS HAZARI COURT
BEST CIVIL LAWYER IN ROHINI COURT
BEST CRIMINAL LAWYER IN ROHINI COURT
BEST CRIMINAL ADVOCATE IN ROHINI COURT
BEST CIVIL LAWYER IN TIS HAZARI COURT
MUTUAL CONSENT LAWYER IN ROHINI COURT
MUTUAL CONSENT LAWYER IN TIS HAZARI COURT
MUTUAL CONSENT ADVOCATE IN TIS HAZARI COURT
MUTUAL CONSENT ADVOCATE IN ROHINI COURT
DIVORCE LAWYER IN SECTOR 5 ROHINI
DIVORCE LAWYER IN SECTOR 3 ROHINI
DIVORCE LAWYER IN MODEL TOWN
DIVORCE LAWYER IN ASHOK VIHAR
DIVORCE LAWYER IN SECTOR 9 ROHINI
DIVORCE LAWYER IN ALIPUR
DIVORCE LAWYER IN NARELA
BEST DIVORCE LAWYER IN ROHINI COURT
BEST DIVORCE LAWYER
MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE LAWYER
ARBITRATION LAWYER
CHEQUE BOUNCE CASE LAWYER
MONEY RECOVERY SUIT LAWYER/ADVOCATE
DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN ROHINI
DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN TIS HAZARI
BEST DIVORCE ADVOCATE
BEST CIVIL ADVOCATE
BEST CRIMINAL ADVOCATE
BEST PROPERTY LAWYER/ADVOCATE
BEST PROPERTY LAWYER IN ROHINI
BEST PROPERTY LAWYER IN DELHI
BEST CIVIL LAWYER IN DELHI
BEST HIGH COURT LAWYER IN DELHI
BEST HIGH COURT ADVOCATE IN DELHI
BEST CRIMINAL APPEAL LAWYER IN DELHI
BEST DIVORCE LAWYER IN PASCHIM VIHAR
BEST DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN PASCHIM VIHAR
COURT MARRIAGE LAWYER IN ROHINI
COURT MARRIAGE ADVOCATE IN TIS HAZARI
COURT MARRIAGE ADVOCATE IN PRASHANT VIHAR
COURT MARRIAGE ADVOCATE IN ROHINI COURT
COURT MARRIAGE ADVOCATE IN MODEL TOWN
COURT MARRIAGE ADVOCATE IN TIS HAZARI
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ADVOCATE IN ROHINI
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LAWYER IN TIS HAZARI
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ADVOCATE IN TIS HAZARI
BEST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ADVOCATE/LAWYER
BEST MAINTENANCE CASE LAWYER IN ROHINI COURT
BEST CHILD CUSTODY CASE LAWYER IN ROHINI COURT
BEST CHILD CUSTODY CASE ADVOCATE IN ROHINI COURT
BEST CHILD CUSTODY CASE ADVOCATE IN TIS HAZARI
BEST CHILD CUSTODY CASE LAWYER IN PITAMPURA
BEST CHILD CASE CUSTODY LAWYER IN PRASHANT VIHAR
BEST 498A LAYWER IN ROHINI
BEST 498A ADVOCATE IN ROHINI COURT
BEST 498A LAYWER IN TIS HAZARI
BEST 498A ADVOCATE IN TIS HAZARI COURT
MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE LAWYER IN ROHINI
MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE LAWYER IN TIS HAZARI
MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE LAWYER IN PITAMPURA
MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE LAWYER IN DELHI
DIVORCE LAWYER
DIVORCE LAWYER IN NEW DELHI
DIVORCE LAWYER DELHI
DELHI HIGH COURT LAYWER
DELHI HIGH COURT LAWYER FOR DIVORCE CASE
PARTITION CASE LAWYER
DELHI HIGH COURT LAWYER
BEST CIVIL LAWYER
MONEY RECOVERY SUIT LAWYER IN ROHINI
MONEY RECOVERY SUIT LAWYER IN TIS HAZARI
MONEY RECOVERY SUIT ADVOCATE IN ROHINI
MONEY RECOVERY SUIT ADVOCATE IN TIS HAZARI
CHEQUE BOUNCE CASE LAWYER IN ROHINI COURT
CHEQUE BOUNCE CASE LAWYER IN TIS HAZARI
CHEQUE BOUNCE CASE ADVOCATE IN ROHINI
CHEQUE BOUNCE CASE ADVOCATE IN TIS HAZARI
CORPORATE LAWYER IN ROHINI
CORPORATE LAWYER IN DELHI
CORPORATE LAWYER IN NEW DELHI
BUSINESS LAWYER IN ROHINI
BUSINESS LAWYER IN DELHI
MATRIMONIAL DISPUTE LAWYER IN ROHINI
MATRIMONIAL DISPUTE LAWYER IN TIS HAZARI
MATRIMONIAL DISPUTE ADVOCATE
EVICTION SUIT LAWYER IN ROHINI DELHI
COURT MARRIAGE LAWYER IN ROHINI DELHI
BEST LAWYER IN ROHINI DELHI
BEST CRIMINAL LAWYER IN ROHINI DELHI
BEST CRIMINAL ADVOCATE IN ROHINI DELHI
BEST CRIMINAL ADVOCATE IN TIS HAZARI DELHI
BEST DIVORCE LAWYER IN SAKET
BEST DIVORCE LAWYER IN DWARKA
DIVORCE LAWYER IN SAKET
DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN SAKET
BEST FAMILY COURT LAWYER
BEST FAMILY COURT ADVOCATE IN ROHINI
AFFORDABLE DIVORCE LAWYER IN DELHI
AFFORDABLE LAWYER IN DELHI HIGH COURT
APPEAL LAWYER IN DELHI HIGH COURT
CIVIL SUIT LAWYER IN DELHI HIGH COURT
NRI DIVORCE LAWYER IN DELHI
DOWRY CASE LAWYER IN DELHI
DOWRY CASE LAWYER IN ROHINI
DIVORCE LAWYERS IN DELHI
DIVORCE ADVOCATES IN DELHI
DIVORCE BEST LAWYER IN DELHI
DIVORCE BEST ADVOCATE IN DELHI
DIVORCE BEST LAWYER IN NEW DELHI
DIVORCE BEST ADVOCATES IN NEW DELHI
DIVORCE BEST ADVOCATE IN SOUTH DELHI
DIVORCE LAWYER IN SOUTH DELHI
DIVORCE LAWYER IN NORTH DELHI
DIVORCE LAWYER IN WEST DELHI
DIVORCE LAWYER IN TIS HAZARI
EXPERT DIVORCE LAWYER
EXPERT DIVORCE LAWYERS
BEST LAWYERS
BEST ADVOCATES
BEST ADVOCATES IN DELHI
BEST LAWYERS IN DELHI
BEST LAWYER IN DELHI
BEST FAMILY CASE LAWYER IN DELHI
BEST FAMILY COURT LAWYER IN DELHI
BEST FAMILY COURT LAWYER IN ROHINI
BEST COURT MARRIAGE LAWYER IN ROHINI
BEST COURT MARRIAGE LAWYER IN DELHI
BEST COURT MARRIAGE ADVOCATE IN ROHINI
BEST COURT MARRIAGE ADVOCATE IN ROHINI COURT
BEST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LAWYER IN ROHINI COURT
BEST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LAWYER IN TIS HAZARI COURT
BEST MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE LAWYER IN DELHI
BEST MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN DELHI
BEST MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN ROHINI
BEST MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE LAWYER IN ROHINI
BEST MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE LAWYER IN TIS HAZARI
BEST MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN TIS HAZARI
BEST FAMILY LAW LAWYER IN DELHI
BEST FAMILY LAWYER IN DELHI
FEES OF MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE IN DELHI
FEES OF MUTUAL DIVORCE IN DELHI
PROCEDURE OF MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE IN DELHI
PROCEDURE OF MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE IN INDIA
EXPERT DIVORCE ADVICE IN DELHI
EXPERT DIVORCE CASE ADVICE IN NEW DELHI
EXPERT DIVORCE OPINION IN NEW DELHI
CHILD SUPPORT LAWYER IN DELHI
CHILD SUPPORT LAWYER IN ROHINI
CHILD SUPPORT LAWYER IN TIS HAZARI
BEST LAWYER IN ROHINI
BEST LAWYER IN TIS HAZARI
BEST ADVOCATE IN PASCHIM VIHAR
EXPERT DIVORCE CASE LAWYER
BEST DIVORCE CASE LAWYER
BEST DIVORCE CASE LAWYER IN DELHI
BEST DIVORCE LAWYER IN NEW DELHI
BEST DIVORCE LAWYER IN DELHI NCR
BEST DIVORCE LAWYER IN NCT
BEST DIVORCE LAWYER IN INDIA
BEST DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN NEW DELHI
BEST DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN DELHI NCR
BEST DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN TIS HAZARI
BEST DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN INDIA
DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN DELHI
CHEQUE BOUNCE ADVOCATE IN DELHI
CHEQUE BOUNCE CASE ADVOCATE IN DELHI
CHEQUE BOUNCE CASE ADVOCATE IN TIS HAZARI COURT
CHEQUE DISHONOUR LAWYER IN TIS HAZARI COURT
CHEQUE DISHONOUR LAWYER IN ROHINI COURT
CHEQUE DISHONOUR ADVOCATE IN ROHINI COURT
CHEQUE DISHONOUR LAWYER IN ROHINI
CHEQUE DISHONOUR LAWYER IN SAKET COURT
CHEQUE DISHONOUR LAWYER IN KARKARDOOMA
CHEQUE BOUNCE LAWYER IN TIS HAZARI
CHEQUE BOUNCE CASE LAWYER IN DELHI
ARBITRATION LAWYER IN DELHI
ARBITRATION CASE LAWYER IN DELHI
CORPORATE LAWYER IN ROHINI DELHI
CORPORATE LAWYER IN TIS HAZARI DELHI
CORPORATE LAWYER IN DELHI INDIA
PROPERTY CASE LAWYER IN DELHI INDIA
PROPERTY CASE ADVOCATE IN DELHI INDIA
DIVORCE LAWYER IN DELHI INDIA
BEST DIVORCE LAWYER IN DELHI INDIA
BEST DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN DELHI INDIA
BEST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE LAWYER IN DELHI INDIA
BEST CHILD CUSTODY CASE LAWYER IN DELHI INDIA
BEST ALIMONY LAWYER IN DELHI INDIA
BEST BUSINESS DISPUTE LAWYER IN DELHI INDIA
EXPERT BUSINESS DISPUTE LAWYER IN DELHI INDIA
EXPERT LAWYER IN DELHI INDIA
EXPERT BUSINESS ADVOCATE IN DELHI INDIA
BEST DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN NEW DELHI INDIA
BEST DIVORCE LAWYER IN ROHINI DELHI
BEST DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN ROHINI DELHI
BEST DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN TIS HAZARI DELHI
BEST DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN SAKET
BEST DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN DWARKA DELHI
BEST DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN KARKARDOOMA COURT DELHI
BEST DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN PATIALA HOUSE COURT DELHI
BEST DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN NORTH DELHI
BEST DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN SOUTH DELHI
BEST MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN NEW DELHI
AFFORDABLE DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN DELHI
AFFORDABLE DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN ROHINI DELHI
AFFORDABLE DIVORCE LAWYER IN ROHINI DELHI
AFFORDABLE DIVORCE LAWYER IN TIS HAZARI COURT
SERVICE MATTER LAWYER IN DELHI
WRIT MATTER LAWYER IN DELHI HIGH COURT
WRIT MATTER LAWYER IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIVORCE LAWYER IN DELHI HIGH COURT
CIVIL LAWYER IN DELHI HIGH COURT
CRIMINAL LAWYER IN DELHI HIGH COURT
DIVORCE ADVOCATE IN DELHI HIGH COURT
CORPORATE LAWYER IN DELHI HIGH COURT
COMPANY LAWYER IN DELHI HIGH COURT
ADVOCATE FOR DRT IN DELHI
ADVOCATE FOR NCLT IN DELHI
FAMILY MATTER LAWYER IN DELHI
BEST FAMILY CASE LAWYER IN NEW DELHI
BEST FAMILY CASE LAWYER IN ROHINI DELHI
BEST FAMILY CASE LAWYER IN TIS HAZARI DELHI
BEST FAMILY COURT LAWYER IN ROHINI DELHI
LAW FIRM IN DELHI
LAW FIRM IN NEW DELHI
BEST LAW FIRM IN NEW DELHI
BEST LAW FIRM IN ROHINI DELHI
BEST LAW FIRM IN ROHINI COURT
BEST LAW FIRM IN DELHI HIGH COURT
BEST LAW FIRM IN TIS HAZARI
BEST DIVORCE LAW FIRM IN DELHI
BEST DIVORCE LAW FIRM IN NEW DELHI
BEST DIVORCE LAW FIRM IN SOUTH DELHI
BEST CORPORATE LAW FIRM IN DELHI
Divorce Law Firm in India
Property Lawyer in Delhi
Lawyer for NRI
Property lawyer for NRI
Best Property Lawyer for Foreign Client
Best NRI Lawyer
Best Divorce Lawyer for NRI
Best Divorce Lawyer for Foreigner
Best Mutual Consent Divorce Lawyer In Delhi
Best Law Firm in Delhi
Best Property Law Firm in Delhi
Best Divorce Lawyer in Delhi
Best Divorce Lawyer in India
Affordable Lawyer for Mutual Divorce in Delhi
Affordable Lawyer for Divorce in Delhi
Affordable Divorce Lawyer in Tis Hazari
Affordable Divorce Lawyer in Rohini Delhi
Expert Divorce Lawyer in Rohini Delhi
Expert Divorce Law Firm in Delhi
Best Cheque Bounce Lawyer in Delhi
Best Cheque Bounce Law Firm in Delhi
Best Business Dispute Law Firm in Delhi
Best Commercial Dispute Law Firm in Delhi
Divorce Lawyers In Delhi
Mutual Consent Divorce Lawyer in North Delhi
Child Custody Lawyers in Saket
Divorce Lawyer in Model Town
498A Lawyer in West Delhi
Domestic Violence Lawyer in Rohini
Child Maintenance Lawyer in Pitampura
Annulment of Marriage Lawyer in Rohini
Civil Case Lawyer in Pitampura
Property Case Lawyer in Paschim Vihar
Mutual Consent Divorce Lawyer in Paschim Vihar
Divorce Lawyer in Karkardooma
Mutual Divorce Lawyer in Delhi
Specialist Divorce Lawyer in Delhi
Expert Child Custody Lawyer in Delhi
see more

8800543454

Get DirectionGet Direction