Borrower cannot claim extension of time period under One time settlement scheme (OTS) as matter of right.

Extension of time to borrowers for making payment of balance amount under sanctioned beyond time granted under One time settlement scheme - Justifiability - Held, rescheduling payment under One time settlement scheme and granting extension of time tantamount to rewriting contract, which was impermissible while exercising powers under Article 226 - Modification of contract cab be done only by mutual consent under Section 62 of Contract Act - Further, under original One time settlement Scheme, sanctioned in year 2017, borrower was getting a substantial relief of approximately Rs. 3 crores - Sanctioned letter specifically shows that entire payment was to be made by 21.05.2018, otherwise One time settlement would be rendered infructuous - Therefore, High Court erred in granting extension of time to borrowers under One time settlement scheme quashed and set aside

NDPS Suspension of Sentence (Bail): Further incarceration would be violative of the right of the applicant-appellant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India :

NDPS Suspension of Sentence (Bail): Further incarceration would be violative of the right of the applicant-appellant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India

An amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs not recovered cannot be made a ground for disentitling to grant of Anticipatory Bail in asmuch as the the petitioner cannot be forced to get such amount recovered as the same would virtually amount to forcing of admission of guilt: Anticipatory Bail for the offence under section 420, 406, 120-B IPC granted by Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana

An amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs not recovered cannot be made a ground for disentitling to grant of Anticipatory Bail in asmuch as the the petitioner cannot be forced to get such amount recovered as the smae would virtually amount to forcing of admission of guilt:Anticipatory Bail for the offence under section 420, 406, 120-B IPC granted

Bail to the accused under POCSO Act: The intention of POCSO was to protect children below the age of 18 years from sexual exploitation. It was never meant to criminalise the consensula romantic relationship: DELHI HIGH COURT

Bail to the accused under POCSO Act: The intention of POCSO was to protect children below the age of 18 years from sexual exploitation. It was never meant to criminalise the consensula romantic relationship

Anticipatory Bail u/s 498A, 406 IPC granted by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh

CRM-M-49984-2022 (O&M)Gurdeep Singh @ Gurdeep Singh Rupana Versus State of PunjabPresent:- Mr. Anoop Verma, Advocatefor the petitioner.…CRM-40797-2022Prayer made in the application is for exemption from filing thecertified copies of Annexures…

Dispossession under SARFAESI Act, 2002, Stayed by Hon’ble High Court

Hon’ble High Court stayed the dispossession under section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, 2002

Bank initiated the recovery proceedings under SARFAESI Act, 2002 against the borrower and issued the possession notice u/s 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and also took the permission from the…

Bail/Suspension of sentence for the offence under section 376 IPC and section 6 POCSO Act.

Bail/Suspension of sentence for the offence under section 376 IPC and section 6 POCSO Act. Hon’ble Court after considering the facts & arguments raised, was pleased to suspend the sentence…