Home / articles / Appropriate Procedure for Remand of Accused Under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) by Rakesh Kumar Singh

Appropriate Procedure for Remand of Accused Under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) by Rakesh Kumar Singh

October 23, 2016 articles Leave a comment 1,707 Views

Appropriate Procedure for Remand of Accused Under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) by Rakesh Kumar Singh (PDF)

Appropriate Procedure for Remand of Accused Under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) b… by latest laws team on Scribd

Facebook Comments

Tags POCSO

Check Also

Cyber Crime on Boom- Digital India Effect By: Parag Parashar

“The next war will be Cyber war” said Mr. Saket Modi,CEO of Lucideus, company handling BHIM security. As the initiative “DIGITAL INDIA” took up and its impact could be analyzed as positive or negative, the main question arises for ...

KERALA AYURVEDA PARAMPARYA VAIDYA FORUM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 - Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970. we are of the considered opinion that the High Court was right in dismissing the petitions filed by the appellants herein. Consequently, the appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. Interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of accordingly. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

R.K. Agrawal and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.

13/4/2018 View judgement PDF

M/S OSWAL WOOLLEN MILLS LTD. Vs. M/S OSWAL AGRO MILLS LTD.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1940, Section 20. we do not find any infirmity or error in the approach and judgments passed by the courts below. There is no merit in this appeal and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.

R.K. Agrawal and R. Banumathi, JJ.

13/4/2018 View judgement PDF

SHIVA KANT JHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Constitution of India, Article 32. we dispose of the petition filed by the writ petitioner.

R.K. Agrawal and Ashok Bhushan, JJ.

13/4/2018 View judgement PDF

D. SARAVANAN Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TANGEDCO TNEB DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE

Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004. The appeal is disposed of with the following directions: (1) The respondents are directed to consider the application of the appellant treating it to be registered with effect from 21.03.2011, i.e., the date it was resubmitted. (2) The appellant shall resubmit a fresh demand draft of L 550/- which was returned by the respondent on 20.02.2017. (3) The respondents may process the application and intimate within a period of three months about any further fee or other requirements which need to be complied with by the appellant for the purpose.

A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ.

12/4/2018 View judgement PDF

STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. UTILITY USERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT

Electricity Act, 2003, Sections 62, 64 and 86 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11. The appeals as well as the other transferred cases stand disposed of accordingly leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

J. Chelameswar and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JJ.

12/4/2018 View judgement PDF

ASOK PANDE Vs. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Constitution of India, Article 32 - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Supreme Court Rules, 2013. Some of the averments which have been made by the petitioner are scandalous. However, we have considered it appropriate to allow the matter to rest with a caution that the petitioner must be more responsible for the manner in which he seeks to draft pleadings in future filings. we find no merit in the petition. The writ petition is dismissed.

Dipak Misra, CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.

11/4/2018 View judgement PDF

A.P INDUSTRIAL INF. CORP. LTD Vs. S.N RAJ KUMAR

Companies Act, 1956 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 54 - Registration Act, 1908 - Specific Relief Act, 1963. it is not necessary to deal with the argument as to whether doctrine of proportionality is applicable in the instant case or not. It is to be borne in mind, as rightly held by the High Court, that the appellant-Corporation had withdrawn the action of cancellation of the plots. Instead, it demanded 50% of the prevailing market value in lump sum towards the cost of the plots. There is no legal basis for such a demand, more so, after the registration of the sale deeds in favour of the respondents thereby transferring the ownership in these plots in their favour. As a result, all the appeals are dismissed with costs.

A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ.

10/4/2018 View judgement PDF

BAXIS SINGH Vs. SUKHDEV SINGH (D) THR LRS .

Rajasthan Tenancy Act, Sections 88 and 183. The appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.

N.V. Ramana and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.

10/4/2018 View judgement PDF

CHOTANBEN Vs. KIRITBHAI JALKRUSHNABHAI THAKKAR

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Orders XIII and XVI - Evidence Act, Sections 67 and 71 - Constitution of India, Article 136. This appeal succeeds and is allowed, with no order as to costs.

Dipak Misra, CJI., A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.

10/4/2018 View judgement PDF

SARSWATI SINGH Vs. SHAILESH SINGH

Constitution of India, 1950, Article 32. The petitioners deposited a sum of L 35 lakhs. Out of the said amount, a sum of L 25 lakhs was withdrawn by the respondents. A balance of L 10 lakhs is lying in deposit with the Registry which was invested in a fixed deposit. The aforesaid amounts were directed to be deposited by this Court in order to test the bona fides of the petitioners. Now that the writ petition has been dismissed, we find merit in the application of the petitioners, that they are entitled to a refund of the amount of L 35 lakhs and the return of the title deeds deposited in this Court. Consequently, we direct that the amount of L 10 lakhs (out of the above mentioned amount of L 35 lakhs) which is lying in deposit with the Registry shall be returned to the petitioners together with the accrued interest. The respondents shall refund an amount of L 25 lakhs which was withdrawn by them in pursuance of the interim directions, to the petitioners within a period of three weeks hence. The petitioners shall also be entitled to return of the title deeds deposited in the Registry. The MA shall stand disposed of.

Dipak Misra, CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.

10/4/2018 View judgement PDF

Latest CaseLaw

Latest laws Helping good people to do good things.

Friday

27 April 2018

HC apologizes to 71-year-old man who on Magistrate’s order spent 20 days in Mental Hospital, orders 2 Lakhs as Compensation

Justice Krishna Murari of Allahabad HC to take over as Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court

Know Why Govt. has sent back SC Collegium’s recommendation to make Justice KM Joseph a SC Judge

SC on Transfer of Kathua Rape Case: If we find slightest possibility of a lack of a fair trial, we will transfer the case out of Kathua

Long Arm Jurisdiction of Company Courts and the way ahead By Prajval Albuquerque

Need to eradicate Tax Terrorism By: Bhumesh Verma

Bringing Financial Fraudsters / Absconders to book. By Bhumesh Verma

Cyber Crime on Boom- Digital India Effect By: Parag Parashar

Know Why Indian Millionaires are observing Quit India Movement-II By: Bhumesh Verma

Value Based Governance- An Imperative By: Saurabh Sinha

How to Make Snatching a Serious Offence in Delhi By: Rakesh Kumar Singh

Appropriate Procedure for Remand of Accused Under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) by Rakesh Kumar Singh

You May Also Like

Check Also

Cyber Crime on Boom- Digital India Effect By: Parag Parashar

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Get Latest Laws News Alert

Get Latest Laws News Alert