.....petitioner and has stated that since he has been placed in 'low medical category, he is entitled to anticipatory bail. i have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner. crl. misc. not m-6509 of 2013 (o&m) -:2. :- admittedly, the low medical category is not of such a nature that the petitioner cannot join the investigation. earlier the petitioner was afforded opportunity to join the investigation but he did not join. fact remains that there are serious allegations against the petitioner with regard to demand of dowry, harassment, humiliation and torture, etc., which have been discussed in the earlier order. keeping in view the fact that no new grounds are forthcoming and neither there is any provision to review the earlier order, this court is not inclined to grant the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. dismissed. [ paramjeet singh ].march 01, 2013. judge kadyan
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....only a minot player and except for allegedly being associating with hiring of warehouses, there is no other allegation against him. mr.cheema has made an attempt to distinguish the case of main accused, who had committed this huge fraud. the petitioner otherwise is in judicial custody. the trial is likely to take time to conclude. considering the role and the evidence, which may not call for any comment by this court, lest it prejudices the case of either side, the case for release of the petitioner on bail is made out as it will serve no purpose to keep him in custody. the petitioner is allowed bail to the satisfaction of chief judicial magistrate/duty magistrate, gurgaon. march 01, 2013 (ranjit singh ) khurmi judge
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....as harjit singh uppal vs. anup bansal, 2011 (3) r.c.r. (civil) 247. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. it appears that an eviction petition under section 13 of the east punjab urban rent restriction act was preferred by petitioners against the respondent/tenant for seeking ejectment of demised premises measuring 3400 sq. feet located in bharat nagar chowk, ludhiana. during the pendency of ejectment petition, application was moved for assessment of provisional rent. vide order dated 7.6.2011 trial court assessed the provisional rent as rs.80,850/- per month and fixed 26th july, 2011 as the date on which payment would be made. instead of making payment, tenant moved an application for grant of further time to deposit rent. rent controller vide order dated 27.7.2011 directed ejectment due to non-payment of provisional rent. aggrieved, respondent/tenant filed an appeal before the appellate authority at ludhiana. same was allowed observing that provisional rent had not been correctly assessed. i am of the considered view that order passed by the appellate authority is unsustainable. admittedly, order dated 7.6.2011,.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the present fir and he has been admitted to bail by the trial court in aforementioned case. heard. co-accused jaswinder singh and c.karanvir, from whom the recovery was effected, have been enlarged on bail by the trial court. the another fir pointed out by the learned state counsel came into being after registration of the present fir. he is in custody since 30.10.2012. challan is yet to be presented. without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial subject to furnishing the bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned cjm/ duty magistrate, fatehgarh sahib. 1.3.2013 (jitendra chauhan) gsv judge
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....in nature. with regard to dishonour of cheque issued by the wife of petitioner no.1, proceedings under section 138 of the act have been initiated by the complainant. so far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, he had allegedly failed to repay the loan taken from the complainant. in this regard the complainant could have filed a suit for recovery against the petitioners but no criminal offence can be said to have been committed by the petitioners.hence, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. accordingly, this petition is allowed. fir no.694 dated 30.12.2008 under sections 406, 420,120-bipc registered at police station sector 5, panchkula (annexure p-2) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. (sabina) judge march 01, 2013 anita
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....(elementary education).punjab- respondent no.3 within a period of six weeks from today. if such a representation is made, the same shall be considered and decided by the said respondents within a period of five months from the date of submission of such representation. decision so taken be conveyed to the petitioners forthwith. in case the claim of the petitioners is accepted, the consequential benefits, if any, be released to them, in accordance cwp no.4531 o”3. with law, within a further period of two months. in case the claim of the petitioners is not to be accepted, a well-reasoned and speaking order be passed and conveyed to the petitioners forthwith. (augustine george masih ) march 01, 2013 judge pj
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....and then opened the door of the room in which jai lal was there with a kick of his foot on the plank of the door. it appears that those acts enraged jai lal. leaving aside the reasons for jai lal to be angry with main pal, it is a fact that jai lal has been convicted for an offence punishable under section 323 ipc. he is, therefore, not convicted for a serious offence. the offence is alleged to have been committed in the year 1999 and more than 14 years have passed since that date. there is no past history of involvement of jai lal in any such type of case. he has crr no.3174 o”3. .unblemished record of service and all these circumstances were sufficient for learned additional sessions judge to be persuaded to partly accept the appeal and to order release of respondent no.1, jai lal on probation of good conduct. consequently, i find no good ground to interfere with the well reasoned order of learned additional sessions judge, panchkula granting concession of probation to jai lal. the revision petition lacks in merits and is, therefore, dismissed. (vijender singh malik) judge march 1st, 2013 som
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of the meeting of screening committee held on 22.1.2012 at rewari under the chairmanship of the administrator, huda, gurgaon, regarding settlement of oustees claims of sector 6 part-i and ii, urban estate, dharuhera. at item no.6 of the list of the oustees claims.annexed with the aforesaid proceeding, the screening committee has recommended for allotment of 6 marla plot to the petitioner as per huda policy. learned counsel for respondents no.2 to 4 states that the said plot will be allotted to the petitioner shortly within a period of three months. in view of the aforesaid factual position, this petition has rendered infructuous. dismissed as having become infructuous. ( satish kumar mittal ) judge march 01, 2013 ( amol rattan singh ) ndj judge
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....was that authorized person of the complainant society was out of station in connection with some domestic work so he could not reach in time. this fact will be well evidenced by the action of the petitioner in moving this application on the same day but the trial court dismissed the application and declined to recall the order in question. reference to section 256 cr.p.c.may be of advantage here. this provision regulates the power of the court in case of non- appearance or death of the complainant. as per this section if the summons has been issued on complaint and on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the magistrate shall notwithstanding anything hereinbefore criminal misc.-m no.2299 o”3. contained, acquit the accused unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day. there is proviso under this section which says that where the complainant is represented by a pleader or by the officer conducting the prosecution or where the magistrate is of the opinion that the personal attendance of the complainant is not.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....is directed to join the investigation and in case he is arrested, he shall be released on interim bail by the arresting officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under section 438 (2) cr.p.c.” this court while issuing notice of motion on 19.10.2012 passed the following order in criminal misc. not m-33441 of 2012:- “crl.m.nos.63843-44 of 2012 both the applications are allowed subject to all just exceptions. crl.m.not m-33441 of 2012 contends that petitioner is having no concern with the dispute between complainant and co-accused ranjit singh, tejinder singh and swaranjit kaur. further submitted that he has crm not m-33173 o”4. been named in the fir on the plea that complainant was having some transaction with the petitioner without specifying the said transaction and that cheques were issued by co-accused swaranjit kaur and cash was paid by co-accused ranjit singh on account of transaction between complainant and the present petitioner without even specifying the said transaction. it is further contended that even dispute, if any, between the complainant and the co-accused, is civil in nature and that complainant, who is a builder at.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT