According to the regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India, Sethi & Associates (referred to as the "Firm") is prohibited from engaging in solicitation or advertising activities. By selecting the "I Agree" option below, the user affirms the following:
1. The Firm and its members have refrained from engaging in any form of advertisement, personal communication, solicitation, invitation, or inducement via this website to procure work or promote services.
2. The primary objective of this website is to furnish users with information pertaining to the Firm, including its practice areas, advocates, and solicitors.
3. The user's intent is to acquire information about the Firm solely for personal or professional informational purposes.
4. Information regarding the Firm is dispensed to the user exclusively upon their specific request. Any materials downloaded or information obtained from this website are entirely at the discretion of the user, and the utilization of this website does not establish a lawyer-client relationship.
5. This website does not serve as an avenue for advertising or solicitation. The contents herein should not be construed as legal advice under any circumstances.
6. The Firm disclaims liability for any consequences arising from actions taken by the user based on the material or information provided on this website. Should the user require assistance, it is recommended to seek independent legal counselling.
7. The content featured on this website is considered the intellectual property of the Firm.
Please read and accept our website's Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy01
Appeal under Cr.P.C & POCSO Act, Section 6: Appellant convicted but sentence upto life imprisonment reduced due to mitigating factors—no brutality, clean record, family support—released after 11+ years served.
03
Decree passed under Order 12 Rule 06 CPC in favour of Landlord for possession of the disputed property
04
Order for registration of FIR under 156(3) CrPC after the police refused to lodge FIR.
05
Order for registration of FIR under 156(3) Crpc after the police on repeated requests and written complaints by the aggrieved party.
06
Order of bail U/s.439 Crpc in a case which was alleged to be of Honor killing. Bail was decided and allowed after consideration of various legal and circumstantial aspects of the case.
08
Anticipatory Bail u/s.438 Crpc. A person was allegedly involved in case pertaining to rape on the pretext of marriage, but astute observation of Hon’ble High court and the work of our Firm anticipatory bail was secured in very early period when such case were very rare.
09
Statutory/ default bail U/s.167 Crpc in case pertaining to MCOCA which was granting in favour of our client which was both challenging and tricky to achieve but the Firm overcame it with years of experience and legal work to deliver the best result.
010
An interstate Case which was argued in Hamirpur(dist.) Himachal Pradesh for Anticipatory Bail U/s. 167 Crpc in case pertaining to cheating and forgery which was allowed and granted in favour of our client.
011
Suspension of sentence after half sentenced was duly served by our client which was appreciated by the Hon’ble High court while allowing the same in favour of our client.
012
The Hon'ble Court while upholding the established legal proposition “ graver the offence stricter should be the proof” discharged and acquitted all the accused person in case U/s.21/29 NDPS.
013
Insufficient evidence: No direct link to crimes, incomplete chain of events. Lack of proof for planning/conspiracy. Our client was acquitted due to benefit of doubt after a in depth arguments on circumstances surrounding the case and legal aspects.Insufficient evidence: No direct link to crimes, incomplete chain of events. Lack of proof for planning/conspiracy. Our client was acquitted due to benefit of doubt after a in depth arguments on circumstances surrounding the case and legal aspects.
014
Dying declaration and sole eyewitness testimony lacked corroboration; investigator's potential fabrication led to assailants' names not initially mentioned. Lack of evidence against appellants overturned their convictions for rioting, murder, and unlawful assembly.
015
Prosecution alleges accused killed MTNL officer over detected fraud. Delayed evidence submission, contradictory witness statements, lack of weapon evidence, and doubts in recoveries discredit the conviction. Court finds insufficient proof to justify conviction, highlighting investigative and procedural shortcomings.