Law todayVinothpandian: 2017 (2) DRTC 534 : Roshan narayanan CS vs authorised officer , central bank of india : An application preferred by any person including borrower against any steps taken by secured creditor that

[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
[9/6, 09:34] Vinothpandian: 2015 (1) DRTC 170 SC : Jv Baharuni & another vs state of gujarat : Magistrate has discretion under section 143 of the NI act either to follow a summary trial or summons trial , in case magistrate wants to.conduct summons trial , he should record reasons after hearing parties and proceed with trial in manner provided under second proviso to sec 143 NI act
[9/6, 09:34] Vinothpandian: 2015 (3) BC 348 : mainuddin Abdul sattar shaik.vs vijay D salvi : person who draw a cheque on an account maintained by him.for paying the payee alone attracts liability ( sec 138 NI act )
[9/6, 09:41] Vinothpandian: 2017 (2) DRTC 629 : Panther fin cap & management services ltd vs bank of india : Debt recovery tribunal is not a civil court and provisions of CPC cannot be straight way made applicable to proceedings in respect of recovery of amount by recovery officer exercising powers under RDDBFI act
[9/6, 09:57] Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) DRTC 104 : mohinder pal singh vs state bank of india : section 13 (7) of the SARFASI act authorises secured creditor to claim charges , costs, and expenses which are actually incurred
[9/7, 10:38] Vinothpandian: 2011 (1) crimes 294 : Achuthanandan vs R Balakrishna pillai : In a corruption case appellate court has full power to review , re appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which if an acquittal order is founded , criminal procedure code put no restrictions , however appellate court must bear in mind that in cases of acquittal , there is double presumption in favour of the accused
[9/7, 10:38] Vinothpandian: 2013 (4) ALL india criminal LR (.FB ) 309 : Tata steel ltd vs Atma tube products ltd : A victim is not obligated to seek leave or special leave of the high court for presentation of appeal under proviso to sec 372 CRPC
[9/7, 10:38] Vinothpandian: 2013 (2) All india criminal LR : state vs nagesha chandregowda : In a murder case motive would form.one of main links in chain of circumstantial evidence , absence of motive or failure on part of prosecution to prove alleged motive could be fatal in cases based on circumtantial evidence
[9/8, 10:42] Vinothpandian: 2017 (2) DRTC 534 : Roshan narayanan CS vs authorised officer , central bank of india : An application preferred by any person including borrower against any steps taken by secured creditor that is designed to deprive said person of any constituent of proprietory right envisaged in sec 13(4)(a) of SARFASI would be maintainable under sec 17 of SARFASI act
[9/8, 10:42] Vinothpandian: 2013 (1) DRTC 727 : manorama mohanty vs Authorised officer , urban cooperative bank ltd : Held cooperative bank can enforce security interest created in favour of bank by the loanee under sec 13 of SARFASI act