Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.27 seconds)Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Mahendra Prasad Sonkar Son Of Sri Chunni ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh Through ... on 6 August, 2004
11. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, the instant bail cancellation application is allowed. The bail order dated 24.04.2023 passed in Bail No. 5497 of 2023 (Ravi Prakash Singh vs. State of U.P.), by which opposite party no.2 was granted bail, is hereby set aside.
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Babulal Dewangan 11 Cra/1241/2000 The ... on 16 January, 2018
Ravi Prakash Singh @ Arvind Singh vs State Of Bihar on 20 February, 2015
It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the process of correction of the father's name of the applicant in the revenue record/Khatauni was also initiated by preferring a Suit (Ravi Prakash Singh Vs. State) u/s 38(1) of the Revenue Code, 2006, which is pending before Sub-Divisional magistrate, Tehsil- B.K.T., Lucknow. The applicant is in possession over the property in question and the said land was being cultivated by him through his servants and being in banking service, he was unable to take care of the day-to-day affairs of his above-mentioned khasra land personally, due to which, he entrusted his family friend, namely, Arun Kumar Singh to look after the said land. Later on, Power of Attorney was also executed in favour of Arun Kumar Singh, which is duly registered in Book No. 4, Zild No. 50, Pages 229 to 240 at Serial No. 172 in the office of Sub-Registrar, B.K.T., Lucknow on 30.12.2021.
Kuljeet Kour vs Shailbala Martin 16 Cont/234/2018 M. Z. ... on 1 November, 2018
Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that after preparing the above-mentioned forged and fabricated I.D.s, opposite party no.2 succeeded in impersonating the applicant and got a forged Power of Attorney registered in favour of co-accused- Pankaj Kumar. The said forged Power of Attorney was executed by opposite party no.2 claiming to be applicant, which is clear act of forgery in terms of the definition of the said offense. The said Power of Attorney is registered in Book No.4, Zild No. 52, Pages 373 to 384 at Serial No. 62 in the office of Sub-Registrar, B.K.T., Lucknow on 01.06.2022. As soon as the applicant became aware of the above-mentioned fact, he immediately made a complaint to P.S.- B.K.T., Lucknow, but since, the police paid no heed to the complaint made by the applicant, the applicant registered complaint on the Chief Minister Complaint Portal on 24.07.2022, which was registered as Complaint No. 40015722056882. Thereafter, a reminder of the said complaint was also filed on 25.08.2022, which was registered as Complaint No. 40015722066318. Further, a Suit No. 2083 of 2022 (Ravi Prakash Singh s/o Ram Lal Singh Vs. Ravi Prakash Singh s/o Ram Pal Singh and Ors.) was filed by the applicant before learned Civil Judge, Hawali, Lucknow on 25.08.2022 for cancellation of the aforesaid illegal Power of Attorney.
1