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 )

You may also like...