Sahayata & Sahayata

NO QUASHING OF FIR IN POCSO CASE BY WAY OF COMPROMISE BY VICTIM AFTER ATTAINING MAJORITY : JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD (DELHI HIGH COURT) IN THE MATTER OF DINESH SHARMA VS STATE & ANR.

In the case of Sesh Nath Singh Vs Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd (CA No 9198 of 2019) Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is no bar to exercise by the Court or Tribunal of its discretion to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the absence of a formal application

The Division Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Comprising Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Ajay Rastogi in the matter of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Versus M/s Navigant Technoloiges Pvt. Ltd. 2021 has held that limitation for filing Petition under section 34 of the arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Commence from the date of receipt of the signed copy of the arbitral Award by Parteis.

Supreme Court of India source: Google The Hon'ble Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah Supreme Court of India observed that a high court, invoking its powers under article 226 of the constitution of India can quash a fir if the same is found to be an abuse of the process of law. Quashing of FIR- Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 can be invoked if it is found to be an abuse of the process of law. It was also observed that inherent Power/Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is designed to achieve the salutary purpose that criminal proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment.