Mhc advt vinothpandian 50 law tips Vinothpandian: 2007 (4) crimes 244 : sarav investment & FCPL : In a complaint under sec 138 NI act service of notice is a part of cause of action for lodging complaint

[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: 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: 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) 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: 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: 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: 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: 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
[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
[9/8, 10:47] Vinothpandian: 2013 (1) DRTC 761 : Ratan kumar & others vs state bank of india : Borrower restrained from dealing with mortgaged assets after being proceeded against him by issuance of notice under sec 13 ( 2) of the SARFASI act , any third party right created after issusnce of notice under sec 13(2) has to be ignored
[9/8, 10:47] Vinothpandian: 2013 (1) DRTC 761 : Ratan kumar & others vs state bank of india : Borrower restrained from dealing with mortgaged assets after being proceeded against him by issuance of notice under sec 13 ( 2) of the SARFASI act , any third party right created after issusnce of notice under sec 13(2) has to be ignored
[9/8, 14:32] Vinothpandian: 2007 (4) crimes 140 : Ramesh Baburao devaskar vs state of maharastra : A cryptic message given on telephone by somebody who does not disclose his idenity may not satisfy the requirement of sec 154 of CRPC
[9/8, 14:54] Vinothpandian: 2004 (12) SCC 336 : Damodar vs state of Rajasthan : Any telephonic information about commission of cognizable offence irrespective of nature and details of such information cannot be treated as FIR
[9/9, 10:52] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) DRTC 457 : Bankey lal gupta & another vs bank of baroda : mere financial hardship cannot be a ground for asking tribunal to excessive waiver ( sec 21 RDDBFI act 1993 )
[9/9, 10:52] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) DRTC 801 : sterlite technologies ltd vs union of india : Elements of a prima facie case and question of financial hardship required to be considered by appellate tribunal while deciding on waiver application ( sec 21 RDDBFI act 1993 )
[9/9, 10:52] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) DRTC 748 : S Anandan & others vs state bank of india : loan contracted for poultry purposes , bank cannot charge interest at compound rate from date of suit , since it is borrowed for agricultural industrial purpose only ( sec 34 RDDBFI act 1993 )
[9/9, 11:20] Vinothpandian: 2005 (6) SCC 109 : Rajendra sail vs madhya pradesh high court bar association : Judgements of courts are public documents and can be commented upon , analysed and criticized but it has to be in dignified manner without attributing motives
[9/11, 06:00] Vinothpandian: 2016 (1) CCC 510 : Notified area council vs Titilagarh club : order 8 rule 9 CPC prohibits any pleadings subsequent to written statement of a defendant being filed other than by way of defence to a set off or counterclaim except by leave of court and upon such terms as court thinks fit
[9/11, 06:00] Vinothpandian: 2013 (4) CCC 315 SC ; kailash vs Nanhku & others : Purpose of providing time schedule for filing written statement under order 8 rule 1 of CPC is to expedite and not to scuttle hearing , provision being in domain of procedural law has to be held directory and not mandatory
[9/11, 06:00] Vinothpandian: 2015 (1) CCC 329 : santhakumari vs Raghavan unni : under order x111 CPC court has ample power to weed out inadmissible document or a document which is not a valid document at all in eye of law
[9/11, 06:08] Vinothpandian: 2017 (3) CCC 298 : KS varghese & others vs st peters & paul syrian orth : An act may affect law and order but not public order just as an act may affect public order but not the security of the state ( art 25 constitution of india )
[9/13, 05:23] Vinothpandian: 2019 (3) MWN ( cr ) 491 : Mahipal vs Rajesh kumar SC : mere recording of ” having perused the record ” and ” on facts and circumstances of case does not subserve purpose of reasoned order , non – furnishing of reasons leads to presumption of non – application of mind warranting interference ( sec 439 CRPC 1973 )
[9/13, 05:23] Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) MWN ( cri ) 626 : dhurga vaishnavi shivamoorthi vs murthy : conduct of accused subsequent to release on bail and supervening circumstances alone relevant for cancellation of bail , bail cannot be cancelled if case does not fall within these two heads in view of bar under sec 362 CRPC
[9/13, 09:55] Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) scale 698 : Bir singh vs mukesh kumar : subsequent filling in of an unfilled signed cheque is not an alteration
[9/13, 09:55] Vinothpandian: 2007 (4) crimes 244 : sarav investment & FCPL : In a complaint under sec 138 NI act service of notice is a part of cause of action for lodging complaint

You may also like...