Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED FORMERLY versus THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED FORMERLY v. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE - Crl MC No. 963 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 8258 (23 May 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 963 of 2007()

1. BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED FORMERLY
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,
... Respondent

2. THE KERALA MANUSHYAVAKASA SAMITHI,

3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :23/05/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 963 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2007

O R D E R

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits and the report of the learned S.D.M. reveals that order has been passed under Section 137(2) Cr.P.C. dropping further proceedings in M.P.No. 22 of 2006 pending before the first respondent. Request of the learned counsel for the petitioner to that effect is accepted and this Crl.M.C. is dismissed as unnecessary now. (R. BASANT) Judge tm

R.BASANT, J.

Crl.M.C.NO.963 OF 2007

Dated this the 26th day of March, 2007.

2

ORDER

Against the petitioner, a conditional order under Section 133 Cr.P.C has been passed. The petitioner has entered appearance. According to the petitioner, initiation of proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C is not legally proper, correct or justified in the light of a Division Bench decision of this Court in Reliance Infocom Ltd. v. Chemancherry Grama Panchayat [2006 (4) KLT 695]. The short grievance of the petitioner that his objection that proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C is not maintainable is not being considered by the Sub Divisional Magistrate.

2. Call for a report from the Sub Divisional Magistrate as to why the objections raised by the petitioner is not being considered. I make it clear that I expect the Sub Divisional Magistrate to consider the said objection and pass appropriate orders on merits expeditiously. The report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate must reach this court by 30.04.2007.

3. Call on 30.04.2007.

H/O. (R.BASANT,JUDGE)

rtr/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.