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

Ajay Madhusudan Patel & Ors. v. Jyotrindra S. Patel & Ors

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Madhusudan Patel while appointing a sole arbitrator, reiterated factors that signify the intention of a non-signatory to be bound by the Arbitration Agreement. The factors as laid down in Cox and Kings being – mutual intent of parties, relationship of a non-signatory with a signatory... Read more »

Raghuveer Sharan Vs. District Sahakari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank & Anr., 2024 INSC 681

The Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding an SLP against an order of MP High Court dismissing the appellant’s revision application held that S.132 of The Evidence Act, 1872 does not provide absolute immunity to the witness making self-incriminating statements as the same could be abused by an influential person with the help of a dishonest... Read more » Read more »

Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister, Maharashtra, SLP (C) 15737/2019, Judgment date: 05-05-2021

The classification of Marathas as a socially and educationally backward class was unreasonable as they belonged to a politically dominant caste with significant economic resources. The court also concluded that the majority opinion in the Indra Sawhney case was correct and that the limit of 50 percent for caste-based reservations did not need consideration by... Read more » 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.