Vinothpandian law tips

[12/11, 10:33] Vinothpandian: 2015 (4) SCC 164 ; Union of india vs SN maity : In matters pertaining to departmental proceedings , merely because words ” until further orders ” are used would not confer allowance on employer to act with caprice
[12/11, 10:33] Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) CTC 142 : Balambal vs D Prakash : High court in review cannot sit in appeal over its order and rehear issues ( order 47 rule 1 CPC 1908 )
[12/11, 10:33] Vinothpandian: 2018 (2) MWN ( cri ) 504 : satpal singh vs state of punjab : satisfaction of court for granting protection under section 438 CRPC 1973 different from one under section 439 CRPC 1973
[12/13, 09:50] Vinothpandian: Supreme court: krishnan & another vs state rep by deputy superintendent of police criminal appeal no 1511 of 2021 dated 29- 11- 2021 : In criminal appeals , exparte enhancement of sentence illegal , in absence of counsels appearing high court should appoint Amicus curiae
[12/13, 09:50] Vinothpandian: Supreme court: civil appeal no 6947 of 2021 dated 23-11- 2021 Uttar Pradesh forest corporation lucknow vs vijay kumar yadav : In disciplinary proceedings , once charge of causing loss proved by enquiry officer , punishment for order for recovery of such loss is mandatory
[12/13, 09:50] Vinothpandian: Supreme court : civil appeal no 6994 of 2021 dated 1- 12 – 2021 Dr G sadasivan nair vs cochin university of science and technology : With regard to decision on pension payments of an employee , pension payable to employee on retirement shall be determined on rules existing at time of retirement
[12/14, 13:22] Vinothpandian: 2007 (5) SCC 103 : Raghu lakshminarayanan vs M / S fine tubes : A business concern is not a company within the meaning of sec 141 of NI act
[12/14, 13:22] Vinothpandian: 2007 (1) crimes 228 : Devender singh vs state of haryana : In dowry death cases , it has been held that demand of monetary assistance for domestic purposes not demand of dowry
[12/14, 13:22] Vinothpandian: 2000 (5) SCC 207 : Kans Raj vs state of punjab : In dowry death cases it has been observed there is a tendency in cases of 498 IPC and 304 B IPC to rope in a large number of in – laws of the victims wife and not only the husband
[12/15, 15:36] Vinothpandian: 2018 (1) SCC (cri) 390 : Asfaq vs state of Rajasthan : By committing a crime a person does not ceases to be a human being , for a prisoner all fundamental rights are an enforceable reality though restricted by the fact of imprisonment
[12/15, 15:36] Vinothpandian: 2018 CRILJ : fakrul islam vs state of Assam : The plea of juvenility can be raised by accused at any stage of the proceedings even after the disposal of case and said plea can be raised before any court ( juvenile justice act section 7- A )
[12/15, 15:36] Vinothpandian: 2018 CRI LJ 1110 : Kavitha G pillai vs joint director , directorate of enforcement : The presumption of innocence and the right to silence are cognate concepts , normally courts cannot be encouraged to hold any suspect guilty merely because he refused to respond to question put up by police or court
[12/15, 15:42] Vinothpandian: 1996 (4) SCC 659 : state of maharastra vs som nath thapa : To establish a charge of conspiracy knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary
[12/16, 14:25] Vinothpandian: 2011 (10) SCC 445 : sadhwi pragyna singh thakur vs state of maharastra : Rights under article 22 (2) of constitution of india is available only against illegal detention by police and it does not operate against judicial order
[12/16, 14:25] Vinothpandian: 2006 (5) SCC 736 : state of chattisgarh vs lekhram : Register maintained in a school is admissible evidence to prove the date of birth of the person concerned in terms of sec 35 of indian evidence act
[12/16, 14:25] Vinothpandian: 2016 (8) SCC 335 : mahipal singh Rana vs state of uttar pradesh : where the bar council fails to take action inspite of reference made to it , the court can exercise suo motu powers for punishing contemnor for professional misconduct
[12/16, 14:45] Vinothpandian: 2011 (8) SCC 434 : state of UP vs Alok verma : merely because a person is in financial crises does not mean that he is at liberty to commit ghastly and gruesome murders
[12/17, 11:07] Vinothpandian: 2011 (8) SCC 679 : Bakshi dev Raj & another vs sudhir kumar : With regard to seeking instructions by counsels from parties , it is always desirable to get instructions in writing ( order 3 rule 1 CPC 1908 )
[12/17, 11:07] Vinothpandian: 2011 (12) SCC 658 : vimleshwar nagappa shet vs Noor ahmad sheriff : A concession made by a counsel on a question of fact held is binding on the client , but if it is on a question of law it is not binding ( order 12 rule 6 CPC 1908 )
[12/17, 11:07] Vinothpandian: 2011 (3) SCC 545 : Parimal vs veena @ bharti : Held substituted service is meant to be resorted to serve notice at address known to parties where party had been residing last ( order 5 rule 20 CPC 1908 )
[12/18, 09:38] Vinothpandian: AIR 1984 SC 1233 : Punjab singh vs state of haryana : In a criminal trial proceedings , when there is inconsistency between medical evidence and direct testimony , if the direct evidence is satisfactory , the same cannot be rejected on hypothetical medical evidence
[12/18, 09:38] Vinothpandian: 1985 (4) SCC 80 : Pattipati venkaiah vs state of Andhra pradesh : medical science is not yet so perfect so to determine the exact time of death , nor can be the same be determined in a computerised or mathematical fashion so as to accurate to the last second
[12/18, 10:29] Vinothpandian: 2013 (2) DRTC 114 : Nippo foods vs state of punjab & others : In a suit for recovery of bank dues , liability of guarantor dependent upon liability of borrower , principal borrower cannot be permitted to say that amount should be recovered from guarantor and not from principal borrower
[12/18, 11:01] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) DRTC 836 : Hdfc bank ltd vs prestige educational trust : section 13(4) of SARFASI act not conferred any power on secured creditor to take possession of any assets other than secured assets
[12/20, 09:46] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) DRTC 302 : Bank of baroda vs sarvottam namkin pvt ltd & others : In DRT recovery suits though court has discretion to award interest other than contractual rate of interest , it should be supported with reasons ( sec 20 RDDBFI act 1993 )
[12/20, 09:46] Vinothpandian: 2016 (2) DRTC 128 : state bank of india vs veetee fine foods ltd : In a proceeding before DRT , castigating of bank officials and passing disparaging remarks need to be avoided , principles of public accountability made applicable with all its vigour , any use of disparaging remarks acts contrary to rule of natural justice

You may also like...