Vinothpandian: 2019 (5) SCC 755 : Bharat broad band network ltd vs United telecoms ltd : when a person is approached in connection with his possible appointment as an arbitrator , it is his duty to disclose in writing any circumstances which are likely to give

[3/1, 13:13] Vinothpandian: 2019 (5) SCC 755 : Bharat broad band network ltd vs United telecoms ltd : when a person is approached in connection with his possible appointment as an arbitrator , it is his duty to disclose in writing any circumstances which are likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence or impartiality ( arbitration and conciliation act 1996 sec 34 )
[3/1, 13:13] Vinothpandian: 2019 (9) SCC 276 : Pradeep Singh dehal vs state of himachal pradesh : High court cannot sit in appeal over decision making process of experts ( art 226 constitution of india )
[3/1, 15:01] Vinothpandian: Supreme court : Tata motors ltd vs Antonio Paulo vaz and another SLP no 10220 of 2020 : unless knowledge of manufacturer regarding conditions of goods is proved , liability cannot be fasten on manufacturer ( consumer protection act )
[3/1, 15:01] Vinothpandian: Supreme court: compack enterprises india ltd vs Beant singh SLP no 2224- 2225 of 2021 dated 17- 02-2021 : consent decree would not serve as estoppel., where compromise was vitiated by fraud , misrepresentation or mistake
[3/2, 14:38] Vinothpandian: 2020 (1) BC 31 SC : standard chartered bank vs heavy engineering corporation Ltd: Bank is always obliged to honour its guarantee if unconditional and irrevocable except in case of fraud , irretrievable injustice or special equities
[3/2, 14:38] Vinothpandian: 2019 ( 7) SCC 158 : Madhav prasad agarwal & another vs Axis bank : plaint can be rejected as a whole or not at all , not in part against some ( order 7 rule 11 CPC 1908 )
[3/2, 14:38] Vinothpandian: 2019 ( 4) SCC 767 : Ripudaman singh vs balkrishna : cheques issued under and in pursuance of agreement to sell constitutes a legally enforceable debt
[3/2, 14:38] Vinothpandian: 2018 (8) MLJ 177 : K kishan vs M/ S vijay nirman company pvt ltd : section 8 of the insolvency and bankruptcy code cannot be used prematurely or for extraneous considerations or as a substitute for debt enforcement procedures
[3/3, 10:30] Vinothpandian: 2021 (1) CTC 868 : N.N global Mercantile pvt ltd vs Indo unique flame ltd : Arbitral tribunal competent to determine on it’s own jurisdiction including objections with respect to existence validity and scope of arbitration agreement , subject to scrutiny of courts at later stage of proceedings
[3/3, 10:30] Vinothpandian: 2021 (1) CTC 830 : saradhammal vs sankaralingam : Held transfer of immovable property under attachment with knowledge of attachment vitiates transfer ( sec 52 transfer of property act 1882 )
[3/3, 11:03] Vinothpandian: Supreme court: P mohanraj & others vs M/ S Shah brothers civil appeal no 10355 of 2018 dated 1- 03- 2021 : Proceedings under section 138 NI act is quasi criminal in nature
[3/4, 09:33] Vinothpandian: 2020 (4) KLT 368 : santhoshkumar vs VS church of south india south kerala diocese : writ petition not maintainable against a church as it performs functions of those belonging to christianity alone and it cannot be termed as a public duty
[3/4, 09:33] Vinothpandian: 2020 (3) KLT 765 : Jose PP manager mattoor kalady rice tech agro mills vs MM Abdul khader proprietor , east india trading company near govt hospital kothanangalam : The power of attorney holder or an authorized person in a complaint under sec 138 of NI act can only represent the company , the company itself should be the complainant especially when the cheques are issued in the name of the company
[3/4, 10:35] Vinothpandian: Supreme court : shivaji chintappa patil vs state of maharashtra CA no 1348/ 2013 dated 2- 03- 2021 : Non.- statement by accused can only be used as additional circumstance and cannot be used as a link to complete chain under sec 313 CRPC
[3/4, 10:35] Vinothpandian: Supreme court : Dakshin haryana Bijili Vitran nigam ltd vs M/S navigant technologies pvt Ltd SLP NO 10372 of 2020 dated 2- 03- 2021 : Period of limitation.for filing objections have to be reckoned from date on which signed copy of arbitral award made available to parties
[3/5, 11:35] Vinothpandian: 2020 (1) MLJ 291 : Bharathidasan vs shanmugavel : fundamental rights cannot be restricted in an implied fashion or in casual and cavalier manner
[3/5, 11:35] Vinothpandian: 2019 (11) SCC 491 : Kamala and others vs MR mohan kumar : when the parties live together as husband and wife there is a presumption that they are legally married couple for claim of maintenance under sec 125 CRPC
[3/5, 11:35] Vinothpandian: 2018 (9) SCC 429 : motiram Padu joshi and others vs state of maharashtra: Evidence of a witness is not to be disbelieved simply because he has not reacted in a particular manner
[3/5, 11:35] Vinothpandian: 2018 (2) SCC ( cri ) 793 : Ganapathi & another vs state of tamil nadu: Related is not equivalent of interested, a natural witness and the only possible eye witness cannot be said to be interested ( Related and interested witness )
[3/6, 12:12] Vinothpandian: Supreme court: subodh Kumar vs shamim Ahmed civil appeal no 802-803/2021 dated 3-03-2021 : facts of any case are foundation on which dispute between parties arises , law is applied on facts and when essential facts are missed, mis application of law is bound to happen
[3/6, 12:12] Vinothpandian: 2020 (6) KLT 611 : manish jain vs haryana state pollution control board : Person released on bail is already in constructive custody of law , if law requires him to come back to custody for specified reasons , application for anticipatory bail apprehending arrest would not lie
[3/6, 13:26] Vinothpandian: 2019 (4) SCC 734 : Nutan gautam vs Prakash Gautam: In a matrimonial dispute inclination of the child and where the child is comfortable are important factors regarding visitation rights
[3/8, 09:23] Vinothpandian: 2019 (7) SCC 797 : shashi bhushan prasad vs inspector general central industrial security force : Two proceedings criminal and departmental proceedings are entirely different , they operate in different fields and have different objectives , object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on an offender, purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with service rules
[3/8, 09:23] Vinothpandian: 2019 (7) supreme 11 : Prashanti medical services & research foundation vs union of india : Promissory estoppel not available against exercise of legislative power ,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Call Now ButtonCALL ME