Vinothpandian: 2015 (4) crimes 32 : state rep by inspector of police CCB vs R vasanthi stanley : In economic offences cases lack of awareness , knowledge or intent is neither to

[1/11, 10:28] Vinothpandian: 2015 (4) crimes 32 : state rep by inspector of police CCB vs R vasanthi stanley : In economic offences cases lack of awareness , knowledge or intent is neither to be considered nor accepted in economic offences
[1/11, 10:28] Vinothpandian: 2014 (3) SCC 696 : vishal agrawal vs chattisgarh state electricity board : Amendment in sec 151 of electricity act which empowers court to take cognizance of an offence upon a report made by police under sec 173 of CRPC would be applicable to pending complaints filed before the amendment
[1/11, 10:28] Vinothpandian: 2015 (7) SCC 178 : Tomaso bruno vs state of UP : Electronic documents in strict sense are admitted as material evidence
[1/11, 10:28] Vinothpandian: Taking note of the surge in COVID-19 cases across the country, the Supreme Court has ordered the extension of limitation period for filing of cases and applications in courts and tribunals.

“The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi­ judicial proceedings”, the Court ordered.

The further directions are as follows :

“2. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022.

3. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.

4.  It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings”.
[1/12, 11:03] Vinothpandian: 2014 (4) SCC 9 : Phula singh vs state of himachal pradesh : Accused has a duty to furnish an explanation in his statement under sec 313 of CRPC regarding any incriminating material that has been produced against him
[1/12, 11:38] Vinothpandian: 2008 (4) SCC 774 : chand patel vs Bismillah begum : sec 125 CRPC 1973 applies to all persons belonging to all religions and has no relationship to personal law of the parties
[1/12, 11:41] Vinothpandian: 2005 (1) RCR ( criminal ) 207 : Amal kumar bose vs state of west bengal : failure to pay instalments to bank for a vehicle under hire purchase agreement , banking officials can repossess the vehicle only in accordance with law and not by force or engaging muscle men
[1/12, 11:41] Vinothpandian: 1958 CRI LJ 1225 : leo Roy frey vs R prasad : In a contempt proceedings held that a publisher who omits to use the expression alleged with reference to a crime or a criminal would not ordinarily render himself liable to commitment for contempt unless the court is satisfied that he really intended to convey the impression that the petitioners are guilty
[1/12, 11:41] Vinothpandian: 2010 (3) RCR ( criminal ) 476 : charanjit lamba vs commanding officer , southern command : In a departmental proceedings as against an employee for misconduct , if the penalty imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct , it would be violative of article 14 of the constitution of india
[1/12, 11:41] Vinothpandian: 1982 CRI LJ 1973 : sampuram singh vs state of punjab : Pleasure of president or governor cannot be fettered by ordinary legislation , can be fettered only under provisions of article 311 of the constitution of india