Shilpa Mittal Vs. State of Nct of Delhi Air – 2020 sc-405

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Shilpa Mittal Vs....

The court while ascertaining the scope of Sec 2(33) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 held that the Act does not deal with offences which are ‘heinous’ in nature.  It observes that even if a child commits a heinous offence, he cannot be automatically tried as an adult. Before, trying a child as an adult, an exhaustive study must be performed and the procedure in place must be adhered to. The offences which do not attract punishment of minimum 7 years do not fall under the category of ‘heinous offence’, and rather fall under the category of ‘serious offences’.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

Fayaz Ahmad Sheikh Vs. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, 2022 Scc Online J&K 565

The court observed that, a complaint under section 138 of NI Act, when an FIR of offences under section 420, 560 IPC was already filed with respect to circumstances of identical nature/ same transaction does not amount to forum shopping or double jeopardy. The offence under section 420 IPC is Read more »

Posthumous Reproduction Not Prohibited By Law – Delhi High Court

In W.P.(C) 15159/2021, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court recognized preserved reproductive genetic material as inheritable “property” under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, permitting the release of a deceased unmarried man’s biological genetic material to his parents for surrogacy, emphasizing that his consent for preservation extended to its posthumous use. The Read more »

Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. General Manager & Anr

In Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd. v. General Manager & Anr., 2024 INSC 889, the Supreme Court clarified that under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, courts can extend the mandate of an arbitral tribunal even after its expiry, provided "sufficient cause" exists. The tribunal’s mandate, which lapsed on Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.