100 law tips by mhc advt Vinothpandian: 2016 (3) CTC 241 : mukanchand bothra S vs vairamuthu ramaswamy ( DB ) : contempt petition filed at behest of private indiv

[8/3, 11:10] Vinothpandian: 2016 (3) CTC 241 : mukanchand bothra S vs vairamuthu ramaswamy ( DB ) : contempt petition filed at behest of private indivdual without consent of advocate general is not maintainable ( section 2(c) of contempt of courts act 1971 )
[8/3, 11:10] Vinothpandian: 2017 (6) CTC 187 : vijay singh vs shanti devi SC : once ex parte decree is set aside , parties would be relegated to position at which they were when ex parte decree was passed ( order 9 rule 13 CPC 1908 )
[8/3, 12:57] Vinothpandian: 2010 (11) SCC 520 : Harinarayan G Bajaj vs state of maharastra ; under section 244 of CRPC the accused has a right to cross examine the witnesses and in the matter of section 319 of CRPC when a new accused is summoned , he would have similar right to cross examine the witness examined during the enquiry afresh
[8/3, 12:57] Vinothpandian: 2000 (8) SCC 131 : PP unnikrishnan vs puttiyottil Alikutty : A police officer assaulting a person in lock up cannot claim that he did the act of assaulting in discharge of his duty
[8/3, 12:57] Vinothpandian: 2007 (9) SCC 721 : Appasaheb vs state of maharastra : mere demand made by the husband to his wife to seek Rs 1000 from her parents to meet domestic expenses would not by any stretch of imagination amount to demand of dowry
[8/3, 12:57] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) crimes 80 : mangat Ram vs state of haryana : failure of a married person to take his wife along with him to the place where he is working or posted would not amount to cruelty leading to abetement of committing suicide by wife
[8/3, 12:57] Vinothpandian: 2004 (8) SCC 774 : V Raja kumari vs P subbarama naidu : In a complaint under section 138 of NI act non – service of notice is not a ground for rejecting complaint even before it is numbered
[8/4, 10:55] Vinothpandian: 1989 (1) SCC 405 : Kuldip kaur vs surinder singh : In a criminal proceedings after awarding sentence and compensation , default sentence is a mode of enforcing recovery of amount imposed by way of compensation
[8/4, 10:55] Vinothpandian: 2014 (4) SCC 149.: state of Rajasthan vs shambhu kewat : crime against a society cannot be wiped of due to a compromise
[8/4, 14:36] Vinothpandian: 2008 (5) SCC 662 ; SK Alagh vs state of UP : Indian penal code does not contemplate any vicarious liability on a party not directly charged for commission of an offence except specifically provided there for
[8/4, 14:36] Vinothpandian: 2004 (5) SCC 729 : Inspector of police vs NMT joy immaculate : Admissibility of evidence or a piece of evidence has to be judged having regard to the provisions of evidence act
[8/4, 14:36] Vinothpandian: 2001 (4) SCC 667 : state of UP vs shambu nath singh : criminal justice cannot be allowed to be defeated solely on account of inaction or lapses of the court in adhering to the mandates of law
[8/5, 15:58] Vinothpandian: AIR 1991 SC 583 : Priyanka overseas p tld vs union of india : A party cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong
[8/5, 15:58] Vinothpandian: 1985 (2) SCC 35 : Rasikal vaghajibhai patel vs Ahmedabad municipal corporation : Person seeking relief under art 136 of the constitution.must come before court with clean hands
[8/5, 15:58] Vinothpandian: 2006 (6) SCC 94 : standard chartered bank vs Andhra bank financial services ltd : Held in a proceedings when both parties bonafides are in doubt , principles of equity is not applicable
[8/5, 16:04] Vinothpandian: 1984 (4) SCC 316 : chandra bansi singh vs state of bihar : supreme court cannot deny a relief to a party if he is entitled to it on equitable considerations though not under law , supreme court is not only a court of law but also a court of equity
[8/6, 12:33] Vinothpandian: 2016 (4) CPJ 28 : pooja pincha & another vs state bank of india : mortgage deed lost by bank , entire loan amount refunded , while original document is not available , loss of document of ownership is not a venial and trivial matter ,directed all cost of mortgage be borne by bank as well as cost imposed by the consumer forum
[8/6, 12:33] Vinothpandian: 2015 (3) CPR 160 : shankar biva pawar vs maharastra electricity supply co ltd : consumer forum have no jurisdiction to entertain a case pertaining to unauthorised use of electricity connection
[8/6, 12:33] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) CPJ 338 : Krishnan lal kalra vs Religare securities ltd : Regular trading in sale and purchase of shares is purely commercial activity and only motive is to earn profits , hence in the above matter consumer forum cannot consider complainant as a consumer
[8/6, 12:38] Vinothpandian: 2016 (2) CPR 151 : Dr srikar reddy & others vs srishti associates : consumer forum has held that a medical practioner would be liable only when his conduct fell below that of standards of a reasonably competent practioner in his field
[8/6, 12:44] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) CPR 36 : smt sujata vohra vs ISI escorts & others : consumer forum had held hospitals to be careful while issuing any document , correctness should be checked either by medical superintendent or by resident medical officer
[8/7, 10:17] Vinothpandian: 2021 (2) CTC 274 : mahalakshmi.vs district collector , virudhunagar district : Pertaining to pregnancy of minor girl , held though safety.and health of victim / minor is paramount , interest of unborn child to be considered , unborn child also a person , court must consider on facts if termination of pregnancy would be in best interest of unborn child
[8/7, 10:17] Vinothpandian: 2021 (2) CTC 497 : master ganesh R vs state of tamil nadu : Regarding challenging the validity of a judicial exam , powers of judicial review under art 226 limited
[8/7, 10:17] Vinothpandian: 2021 (1) CTC 389 : Director ( HR ) oil & natural gas corp ltd new delhi vs B uma : promotion or back wages for an employee cannot be denied when employee not terminated from service due to misconduct
[8/7, 10:24] Vinothpandian: 2021 (1) CTC 577 : Enkay visions p ltd vs doordarshan rep by its director general : Awarding interest in a money suit from the date of decree restricts the fruits of decree and defeats the interest of justice ( section 34 CPC 1908 )
[8/9, 11:10] Vinothpandian: 2021 (2) CTC 801 : state vs S Rajaram : wrong order in one case cannot be basis for compelling public authority to pass similar order in any other case ( art 14 constitution of india )
[8/9, 11:10] Vinothpandian: 2017 (3) CTC 23 : Duraisamy P vs state : Entry in register of births & deaths is not conclusive proof of date of birth / death ( Tamil nadu registration of births and deaths rules 1977 rule 10(3) )
[8/9, 15:05] Vinothpandian: 2016 (4) CTC 689 : deepti.Ahuja vs chief controlling revenue authority cum inspector general of Registration : Held mandate of statutory provisions cannot be supplemented nor overridden by executive / Administrative instructions
[8/9, 15:44] Vinothpandian: 2017 (2) CTC 667 : Ivy C da conceicao vs state of goa SC : Arbitrary action of minority institutions in selection and appointment related issues is subject to judicial review
[8/9, 15:51] Vinothpandian: 2019 (5) CTC 914 : Goomo orbit corporate & leisure travels pvt ltd vs GI retail pvt ltd : In a plaint , party relying on misrepresentation , fraud , breach of trust wilful.default or any undue influence must plead all particulars including dates and items in a suit for defamation.
[8/11, 14:08] Vinothpandian: AIR 1984 SC 1233 : punjab singh vs state of haryana : In a criminal proceedings it is a settled principle that medical evidence cannot override direct evidence when direct evidence is satisfactory and reliable
[8/11, 14:08] Vinothpandian: 1977 (2) SCC 210 : Magan bihari lal vs state of punjab : In a criminal proceedings ordinarily unsafe to base a conviction solely on the expert opinion without substantial corroboration
[8/11, 14:16] Vinothpandian: 1981 (1) crimes 521 : Harekrishna satpathy and another vs maheshwar sahu : An assault by a public servant on a person can never be a part of official duty nor can it be said to be in discharge of official duty and therefore sanction for prosecution under section 197 CRPC will not be necessary
[8/11, 14:16] Vinothpandian: 1987 (2) crimes 257 : purna palai vs state : In a criminal trial it has been held that if two views are possible according to two doctors , the view in favour of the accused should be accepted
[8/12, 05:35] Vinothpandian: 1999 (2) RCR ( criminal ) 176 : state of kerala vs Maxon john : when a person is produced from police custody with bodily injury , court has to presume that the person was subjected to torture
[8/12, 05:35] Vinothpandian: 2000(1) RCR ( criminal ) 690 : state vs Ravi @ munna : In a criminal trial accused not represented by any counsel , appointment of counsel at state expense is not an idle formality , it is a right enshrined under art 21 of constitution of india
[8/12, 05:35] Vinothpandian: 2000 (4) RCR ( criminal ) 654 ( delhi ) ( DB ) : In a criminal trial , magistrate is empowered to close prosecution evidence when prosecution is unable to produce its witnesses inspite of repeated opportunities
[8/13, 09:32] Vinothpandian: 2020 (3) CTC 219 : kumaresan VK vs P jayaseelan : lawyers are globally recognised as officers of court and agents of administration of justice , they are imposed with social duty to promote rule of law
[8/13, 09:32] Vinothpandian: 2015 (6) CTC 22 : Anantha murugan SM vs chairman bar council of india : persons who have been dismissed or removed from service or left services consequent to departmental in – house proceedings are not eligible for enrolment as advocates
[8/13, 09:54] Vinothpandian: 2020 (1) CTC 456 : surinder singh deswal @ col SS deswal vs virender gandhi : In a proceedings under section.138 NI act held non – compliance of condition of suspension of sentence is sufficient to declare suspension of sentence as having been vacated , such order well within jurisdiction of lower appellate court
[8/13, 10:01] Vinothpandian: 2012 (5) SCC 706 : Mrudul M damle vs CBI : In a proceedings relating to transfer of a criminal case , safety convenience of parties including witnesses to be produced at trial are the relevant considerations ( sec 406 CRPC 1973 )
[8/14, 05:32] Vinothpandian: 2014 (1) DRTC 1693 : Alex kuruvilla vs oriental bank of commerce : SARFASI act being a special act and a code in itself to protect secured assets of bank , such assets has to be sold by modes provided under the security interest ( enforcement ) rules rule 8 and 9 , Rule 8 (8) permits sale by private treaty only with condition that private sale terms have to be by a written treaty and not an oral one
[8/14, 05:32] Vinothpandian: 2013 (1) DRTC 650 : Dilip kumar singh & another vs state of UP through sec ministry of finance : secured creditor is legally entitled to take physical possession even after execution of sale deed in favour of auction purchaser , scheme of SARFASI act and rules do not indicate that without taking actual possession , bank cannot proceed with sale of mortgaged assets ( sec 14 SARFASI act )
[8/14, 05:49] Vinothpandian: 2014 (1) DRTC 257 : Kailash chandra sharma vs ICICI bank ltd and others : Notice under section 13 (2) of the SARFASI act to be issued by secured creditor need to be valid and effective in law , if such a notice is issued by a counsel representing bank / secured creditor / authorised officer under section 13 (2) on instruction founded on a conscious decision approving such a step , same cannot be repudiated to be in contravention of letter and spirit of provisions of acts and rules
[8/14, 06:01] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) DRTC 179 : saraswat co- operative bank ltd vs state of maharastra : Bank sought possession of secured assets , collector did not take action merely on ground of pendency of suit , collector bound to follow principles of law , cannot enter upon an adjudication of merits of claim of bank , exercise of powers by collector under sec 14 of SARFASI act explained
[8/16, 05:19] Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) DRTC 52 ( DB ) : KR chandrasekaran & others vs union of india : Power of bank or financial institution to resort to provision of section 14 of SARFASI act is only in continuation and after taking possession as per process enumerated under section 13 (4) of the act , bank cannot straightaway approach the chief metropolitan magistrate or district magistrate under section 14 of the act to assist it in taking possession of secured assets
[8/16, 05:19] Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) DRTC 663 : Niki nish retail pvt ltd & another vs union bank & others : Even if defaulting party falls short of paying Rs 1 of amount specified in demand notice within specified period , its account would still be a non – performing asset and continue to be treated as such ( section 13 ( 2) SARFASI act )
[8/16, 09:52] Vinothpandian: 2018 (6) CTC 510 : puruvankara projects ltd rep by its CEO vs Ranjani venkatraman ganesh ; Re appreciation of evidence like court of appeals not permissible under section 34 of the arbitration and coincilation.act
[8/16, 11:17] Vinothpandian: 2016 (2) CTC 720 : Vijayakumar M vs The inspector general of registration : Regarding societies registration act , held district registrar is not empowered to adjudicate upon rival claims , in this case district registrar conducted enquiry and adjudicated dispute relating to affairs of society , purpose of enquiry under the societies registration act is only to maintain correct records ( Tamil nadu societies registration act 1975 section 36 )
[8/16, 15:00] Vinothpandian: 2019 (6) CTC 337 : fazaullah khan vs M Akbar contractor (d) rep by LRS : Interim orders granted by supreme court not automatically vacated beyond six months period , such interim order must continue to be in force till appeal decided
[8/16, 15:00] Vinothpandian: 2019 (6) CTC 340 : Dr swapan kumar banerjee vs state of west bengal : mere fact that wife did not file petition for grant of maintenance during pendency of matrimonial proceedings would not disentitle her to claim maintenance ( section 125 CRPC 1973 )
[8/16, 15:06] Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) CTC 924 : varun pahwa vs Renu choudhary : power to grant amendment of pleadings is intended to serve ends of justice and not governed by narrow technicalities ( order 6 rule 17 CPC 1908 )
[8/17, 09:27] Vinothpandian: 1975 CRI LJ 1756 : pali Ram vs state : In a criminal trial proceedings the court can direct any person to write words or figures to enable the court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person
[8/17, 09:27] Vinothpandian: 1990 (2) crimes 545 : sanjeev kumar vs state of maharastra : The opinion of handwriting expert in a criminal proceedings though subject to cross examination is of great value , courts have to be very cautious while acting on the opinion evidence , the evidence of handwriting expert is considered to be of a frail character
[8/17, 09:36] Vinothpandian: 2001 CRI LJ 3857 : Noorunissa begum vs district collector : Action of jail authorities in not providing medical treatment to an under trial prisoner complaining of chest pain on the ground of observing procedure under the rules and statutes was held as negligent act making the state liable for grant of compensation
[8/17, 09:36] Vinothpandian: 1994 (5) SCC 186 : Amrut lal someshawar joshi vs state of maharastra : domestic servant killing three members of family with the intention to commit robbery in a heinous cruel and diabolical manner , it fell within the category rarest of rare cases , death sentence confirmed
[8/18, 09:43] Vinothpandian: 2019 (3) CTC 564 : Gnana Arulmoni vs RS maharajan : Held conduct of plaintiff most important factor for grant of equitable relief of specific performance ( specific relief act 1963 section 16 ( c )
[8/18, 09:43] Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) CTC 1 : subramanian R vs ICICI bank ltd chennai : Bankers book evidence act 1884 section 4 : Held when bank marked statement of accounts along with certificate under section 4 of bankers books evidence act , certificate need not be produced for each and every page of statement of accounts
[8/18, 09:53] Vinothpandian: 2012(6) CTC 841 : mahender gayal vs kadamba international : section 201 CRPC 1973 applicable only during pre – cognizable stage and not applicable during post – cognizance
[8/18, 09:53] Vinothpandian: 2019 (6) CTC 263 : kaleur rahman vs P kannan : suit for bare injunction restraining the authorities from granting electricity connection falls within bar of section 145 of the electricity act 2003
[8/18, 10:01] Vinothpandian: 2016 (2) CTC 761 : Manjula L vs state of tamil nadu : government servant convicted for offence under section 138 of NI act , employee filed appeal and settled dispute and appellate court compounded offences , cannot be regarded as offence involving moral turpitude , dismissal of employee from service liable to be set aside
[8/19, 10:40] Vinothpandian: 2004 (2) SCC 783 : karnataka Rare earth vs dept of mines : person acting without any lawful authority must not find himself placed in a position more advantageous than a person acting with lawful authority
[8/19, 10:40] Vinothpandian: 1987 (1) SCC 551 : union of india vs wing commander RR Hingorani : Person doing something with full knowledge of its adverse consequences must face the consequences and cannot claim equitable relief
[8/19, 10:40] Vinothpandian: AIR 1993 SC 852 : Ramjas foundation vs union of india : Person invoking an equitable extraordinary jurisdiction under art 226 of constitution of india should come with clean hands and should not conceal the material fact
[8/19, 10:40] Vinothpandian: 1996 (5) SCC 54 : shangrila food products ltd vs LIC : person seeking equity must bow to equity
[8/21, 05:59] Vinothpandian: 1995 (1) RCR 613 ( DB ) : Niyamavedi vs Raman srivastava : Regarding persons alleged with offences affecting security of state , any citizen can bring to the notice of court that investigation is not proceeding in a proper manner
[8/21, 05:59] Vinothpandian: 1983 CRI LJ 722 : Gurcharan singh vs state of punjab : If an indivdual is able to urge a point , the decision of which will end the abuse of justice or can win freedom to a person illegally detained or threatened to be detained in such a manner the court is not to be influenced by the technicality of the objection as to locus standi to deny relief or refuse to go into the matter , the action of the court has to be conductive to the administration of justice
[8/22, 15:37] Vinothpandian: 2017 (4) CCC 485 SC : Lekh Raj ( dead ) through LR s and others : while executing decree of a civil court , executing court cannot go beyond the decree
[8/22, 15:37] Vinothpandian: 2017 (3) CCC 115 : SDU travels pvt ltd vs vipin sharma : In a proccedings in an appropriate forum , granting final relief in interim order not permissible
[8/22, 15:37] Vinothpandian: 2014 (3) CCC 18 SC : Alok jena vs union of India : Regarding transfer of investigation from state police to CBI , court should exercise the powers sparingly and with utmost care
[8/22, 15:45] Vinothpandian: 2013 (7 ) SCC 685 : commissioner of police new delhi & another vs mehar singh : Dismissal of SLP by supreme court in limine does not mean approval of the impugned judgement
[8/22, 15:45] Vinothpandian: 2017 (4) SCC 170 : JSW infrastructure ltd and another vs kakinada seaports ltd and others : superior courts must act with restraint in contractual matters
[8/23, 05:19] Vinothpandian: 2019 (1) MLJ 163 : QD seatamon designs pvt ltd nungambakkam chennai vs P suresh : statement of law made by supreme court is declaration of law within meaning of art 141 of the constitution of india ,statement of law contained in precedent to be followed as matter of judicial discipline
[8/23, 05:19] Vinothpandian: 2019(6) CTC 337 : Fazalullah khan vs M Akbar : Interim orders granted by supreme court not automatically vacated beyond six months period , such interim order must continue to be in force till appeal decided
[8/23, 15:00] Vinothpandian: 1980 (3) SCC 29 : NC singhal vs union of india : mere expression of opinion cannot create an estoppel
[8/23, 15:05] Vinothpandian: 1998 (6) SCC 165 : state of MP vs dharam bir : Held equities are to be balanced to do complete justice to both parties in an appropriate proceedings before courts
[8/24, 10:54] Vinothpandian: 2015 (7) SCC 178 : Tomaso bruno vs state of UP : In a proceedings electronic documents in strict sense are admitted as material evidence
[8/24, 10:54] Vinothpandian: 2016 (1) SCC ( cri ) 282 : state rep inspector of police CCB vs R vasanthi stanley : In economic offences cases , lack of awareness , knowledge or intent is not to be considered or accepted
[8/24, 11:53] Vinothpandian: 2009 (3) SCC ( cri ) 1111 : state of UP vs Ram balak : In a criminal trial , evidence of dog tracking even if admissible not ordinarily of much weight
[8/24, 11:53] Vinothpandian: 2007 (3) SCC ( cri ) 353 : state of UP vs lalloo singh : Where vehicle seized by officials under wild life protection act , section 457 CRPC has no application
[8/24, 11:53] Vinothpandian: 2000 (4) SCC 262 : Government of AP vs satyanarayana rao : A case cannot be referred to a larger bench on mere asking of a party
[8/26, 05:35] Vinothpandian: 2017 (3) CCC 1 SC : madanuri sri Rama chandra murthy vs syed jalal : order 7 rule 11 CPC application can be decided at any stage of the suit on the basis of averments of the plaint only , power should be exercised in case of a suit manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing any right to sue
[8/26, 05:35] Vinothpandian: 2015 (4) CCC 265 : Dasam vijay Rama rao vs M sai sri : The power to extend time can be exercised by the court when the time for doing some act is fixed or granted by the court and not when such period is fixed under some provisions of the law ( section 148 CPC 1908 )
[8/26, 05:35] Vinothpandian: 2016 (2) CCC 17 SC : Raghavendra swamy mutt vs uttaradi mutt : High courts power to pass ex parte order or interim order subject to postulates of section 100 of CPC 1908 , no ex parte or interim order can be passed without formulating substantial question of law ( section 100 CPC 1908 )
[8/27, 11:16] Vinothpandian: 2007 (5) SCC 228 : N Devindrappa vs state of karnataka : An act can result in both civil and criminal liability , merely in this case , act of the litigant has civil liability that does not mean that it cannot have criminal liability also
[8/27, 11:16] Vinothpandian: 2017 (3) crimes 180 : vasanth Rao guhe vs state of madhya pradesh ; A person cannot be subjected to a criminal prosecution either for a charge which is amorphous and transitory and further on evidence that is conjectural or hypotecnical
[8/27, 11:16] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) crimes 80 : mangat Ram vs state of Haryana : failure of a married person to take his wife along with him to the place where he is working or posted would not amount to cruelty .
[8/27, 11:16] Vinothpandian: 2008 (5) SCC 697b: Dinesh borthakur vs state of Assam : conduct or reaction of an accused by itself no ground to conclude that accused committed the crime
[8/27, 11:16] Vinothpandian: 2019 (1) crimes 291 : Rohit bhai jivanlal patel vs state of gujarat : Mere creation of doubt is not sufficient to rebut the presumtion
[8/30, 06:34] Vinothpandian: 2017 (6) MLJ 489 : U manjunath rao vs U chandrasekar & another : A judge has to constantly remind himself that absence of reason in process of adjudication makes ultimate decision pregnable (sec 96 CPC 1908 ” reason is life of law ” )
[8/30, 06:34] Vinothpandian: 2016 (7) MLJ 419 : kedar nath yadav vs state of west bengal : determination of proper compensation pertaining to land acquisition cannot be considered in writ jurisdiction
[8/30, 06:34] Vinothpandian: 2013 (7) SCC 685 : commissioner of police new delhi vs mehar singh : Art 14 of the constitution of india does not envisage negative equality , any illegality once committed cannot be allowed to be perpetuated
[8/31, 10:55] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) crimes 44 : state of punjab vs davinder pal singh bhullar : Inaction in every case does not lead to an inference of implied consent or acquiescence
[8/31, 10:55] Vinothpandian: 2013 (1) All india criminal LR SC 251 : Kishore samrite vs state of UP : It is the bounden duty of the court to ensure that dishonesty and any attempt to surpass the legal process must be effectively curbed and the court must ensure that there is no wrongful unauthorised or unjust gain to anyone as a result of abuse of the process of the court
[8/31, 10:55] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) RCR ( crl ) 14 : shiv shankar singh vs state of bihar : Pertaining to adverse remarks against judicial officer , high court without taking note of the evidence set aside the order of the magistrate on a technical ground and passed sweeping remarks against magistrate held not justified
[8/31, 10:55] Vinothpandian: 2012 (3) All india criminal LR ( DB) 724 : Raj pal singh vs state of punjab : In a criminal proceedings suspicion alone however strong it may be cannot be substituted for proof
[8/31, 10:55] Vinothpandian: 2011 (4) All india criminal LR 139 : lokesh vs state of karnataka : if two views are possible one which is beneficial to the accused shall be given effect to
[9/1, 09:17] Vinothpandian: 2011 (3) All india criminal LR 655 : goyal gas agency vs sat parkash : If contents of any compromise or agreement are reduced into writing then no amount of oral evidence is admissible for proving the execution , conditions and contents thereof except the document itself ( sec 92 evidence act 1872 )
[9/1, 09:17] Vinothpandian: 2014 (1) All india criminal LR SC 96 : state of punjab vs madan mohan lal.verma : mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantive evidence in case is not reliable , unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as a bribe , mere reciept of amount by accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt in absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification
[9/1, 09:17] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) SCC 520 : Anita malhotra vs Apparel export promotion council : certified copy of a annual return of a company is a public document ( section 74 evidence act 1872 )
[9/2, 10:29] Vinothpandian: 2012 CRI LJ 1092 : K neelamegam vs durgamoorth revenue divisional officer , sivagangai : Act constituting contempt must be an action prohibited by law , held too dangerous to punish a person without making a particular action prohibited by law
[9/2, 10:29] Vinothpandian: 2011 (6) SCC 86 : OP sharma vs High court of punjab & haryana : Acceptance of an apology from a contemnor should only be a matter of exception and not that of a rule
[9/2, 16:07] Vinothpandian: 2011 (9) SCC 182 : state of punjab vs CBI : section 173 (8) of CRPC cannot limit or affect the inherent powers of high court to pass an order under section 482 of CRPC for fresh investigation or re investigation to prevent the abuse of any process of the court
[9/2, 16:07] Vinothpandian: 2013 (2) Crimes 159 : Tejinder singh vs state of punjab : In a criminal proceedings , one accused had filed appeal against his conviction , other accused who was also convicted with the appellant had not filed appeal before supreme court , supreme court exercised its jurisdiction under art 142 of the constitution and extended the same benefits to him
[9/2, 16:18] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) DRTC 691 : Punjab national bank vs consumer disputes redressal forum & others : section 34 of the SARFASI act expressly barred jurisdiction of not only civil courts but also of other authorities which would include consumer forum from granting injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken under SARFASI act
[9/3, 13:21] Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) DRTC 658 : Tushar P shah vs IARC p ltd : With regard to powers of Debt recovery tribunal to execute decree where secured assets situated exclusively in another state , decree may be executed either by the court which passed it or by court to which it is sent for execution
[9/3, 13:21] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) DRTC 801v: sterlite technologies ltd vs union of india : Elements of a prima facie case and question.of financial hardship required to be considered by debt recovery appellate tribunal while considering application for waiver
[9/3, 13:21] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) DRTC 673 : K padma vs k Ramachandran : debt s recovery tribunal and debts recovery appellate tribunal both considered to be a civil court with regard to recovery proceedings
[9/3, 13:21] Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) DRTC 714 : Hdfc bank ltd chennai vs Recovery officer DRT 1 : With regard to decree by Debt recovery tribunal , recovery officer is only an executing court , he cannot travel beyond scope of decree
[9/4, 10:19] Vinothpandian: 2016 (2) DRTC 289 : sundaram.BNP paribas home finance ltd malappuram vs nisha : Recovery proceedings initiated under SARFASI.act , only prayer in writ court that petitioner may be permitted to clear outstanding amount due to bank in easy instalments , writ.court exercised its discretion in granting ten instalments to pay entire outstanding amount along with interest accrued , interest of bank protected
[9/4, 10:19] Vinothpandian: 2013 (1) DRTC 173 : Zephyr exports pvt ltd & others vs central bank of india : Reciept or non – reciept of demand notice under section 13(2) of the SARFASI.act would involve adjudication of a disputed question of fact , for which DRT constituted under sec 17 of the act is best suited , entertaining of a writ petition declined
[9/4, 10:38] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) DRTC 836 : Hdfc bank ltd mumbai & others vs prestige educational trust : section 13 (4) of the SARFASI act not conferred any power on secured creditor to take possession of any assets other than secured assets , if attempted its ultravires to provisions of act
[9/5, 06:23] Vinothpandian: 2014 (3) CCC 664 : Ajit singh vs vinod kumar and others : with regard to compulsory registration of a document , section.53 A of transfer of property act 1882 is for benefit of a transferee , if a document of type mentioned in section 53 A of transfer of property act is not registered , transferee will not be able to take benefit of said provision of section 53 A , however it does not mean that such document does not require to be compulsorily registered
[9/5, 06:23] Vinothpandian: 2017 (1) CCC 532 : Buddha jagadeeswara rao vs sri ravi enterprises : courts obliged to intimate registrar office after cancellation of an instrument of transfer of any immovable property , section.49 of the indian registration act permits admission of unregistered documents in evidence for collateral purposes , but it should be duly stamped
[9/5, 06:23] Vinothpandian: 2013 (1) CTC 399 : Gian chand & brothers and another vs Rattan lal @ Rattan singh : Burden of proving fraud , undue influence or misrepresentation lies on the person making it , while burden of proof never shifts , onus of proof shifts , 2006 (5) SCC 558 relied upon