Mhc advt vinoth pandian today law tips
[12/24, 11:13] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) DRTC 691 : punjab national bank vs consumer disputes redressal forum : 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
[12/24, 11:13] Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) DRTC 335 SC : Ram kishun & others vs state of UP : surety does not have a right to dictate terms to the creditor as to how he should make recovery and pursue his remedies against principal debtor at his instance
[12/24, 11:13] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC 758 : state bank of india vs nivrutti haribhau type & another : Name sake appeal to blame court by throwing an appeal memo before registry without attending same for year , such type of appeals only lead to wasting litigants time , costs imposed on bank ( section 20 RDDBFI act 1993 )
![At this juncture, the learned Additional Advocate General made a request, undertaking to comply with the order of this Court and to file appropriate affidavit. The matter has been pending for more than 8 years, for complying with the order of this Court and the petitioners being driven from pillar to post for getting the relief, as ordered by this Court and therefore, we feel that this is a fit case for imposing costs for granting adjournment. In such circumstances, we are granting two weeks time for filing additional affiavit, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority. List this matter after two weeks. [D.K.K., J.] [P.B.B., J.] 28.08.2023 mrn D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J. and P.B. BALAJI,J. Mrn/Jvm Copy To: The Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Madras High Court, Chennai. Cont P.No.1991 of 2015 etc. batch 28.08.2023](http://sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)