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

[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: 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
[8/17, 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
[8/18, 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