Vnothpandian law tips
[2/1, 14:02] Vinothpandian: AIR 1953 SC 225 : Hira lal vs Badkulal : Acknowledgement made in statement of accounts based on mutual dealings held sufficient to furnish a cause of account for maintaining a suit
[2/1, 14:02] Vinothpandian: 2011 (10) SCC 608 : Royal orchid hoteld ltd vs G jayarama reddy : If any land is acquired for public purpose by state government , such acquired land could not be transferred to any private individual and corporation
[2/1, 14:08] Vinothpandian: AIR 2001 SC 279 : Ratan singh vs vijay singh : where execution of decree was sought beyond period of 12 years after it becomes enforceable , it was held barred by limitation ( art 136 limitation act )
[2/2, 16:08] Vinothpandian: AIR 2009 SC 636 : komalam Amma vs kumara pillai Raghavan pillai : Right to residence is a part and parcel of wifes right to maintainence
[2/2, 16:08] Vinothpandian: 2008 (2) SCC 660 : state of punjab vs jalour singh : lok Adalats should resist their temptation to play the part of judges and constantly strive to function as conciliators
[2/2, 16:14] Vinothpandian: 2008 (4) SCC 774 : chand patel vs bismillah begum : sec 125 CRPC applies to all persons belonging to all religions and has no relationship to personal law of the parties
[2/2, 16:14] Vinothpandian: 2006 CRILJ 1622 : Ramesh kumari vs state : Genuniness or credibility of information not a condition precedent for registration of a case , that can only be considered after registration of a case
[2/3, 11:01] Vinothpandian: 2011 (4) All india criminal LR ( SC ) 508 : R vijayan vs baby : Proceedings under section 138 of the act cannot be treated as civil suits for recovery of the cheque amount with interest
[2/3, 11:01] Vinothpandian: 2012 CRI LJ 3068 : munna kumar upadhyaya vs state of AP : If the accused gave incorrect or false answers during the course of his statement under section 313 CRPC , the court can draw an adverse inference against him
[2/3, 11:15] Vinothpandian: 2013 (4) All india criminal LR ( DB ) : IN Re ketabul Sk : mere failure to disclose pendency of a bail application before a superior court is not a relevant ground for cancellation of bail
[2/4, 16:30] Vinothpandian: 2010(2) crimes 740 : state of HP vs dr Ravinder datyal ; Held for fixing criminal liability of a doctor or surgeon , the standard of negligence required to be proved should be so high as can be described as gross negligence or recklessness
[2/4, 16:38] Vinothpandian: 2013 (3) All india criminal LR : Demand for money on account of financial stringency or for meeting urgent domestic expenses does not amount to demand for dowry2013 (3) All india criminal LR : Demand for money on account of financial stringency or for meeting urgent domestic expenses does not amount to demand for dowry Shanta vs state of karnataka
[2/4, 16:57] Vinothpandian: 2013 (4) All india criminal LR ( SC ) 481 : sumit mehta vs state of NCT of delhi : A person should not be harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy the grudge or personal vendetta of the complainant , grant of bail under section 438 (1) of CRPC is dependent on the merits and circumstances of a case
[2/7, 15:18] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) DRTC 673 : K padma vs K Ramachandran & others : Debts recovery tribunal and debts recovery appellate tribunal , both considered to be civil court with regard to recovery proceedings
[2/7, 15:18] Vinothpandian: 2013 (1) DRTC 799 : Bharat minerals grinding industries vs state of jharkhand : secured creditor has to communicate within one week of receipt of such representation / objection from the borrower , reasons for non – acceptance of representation / objection to the borrower ( sec 13 SARFASI act )
[2/7, 15:18] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC 274 : deepthi trading co rep by its proprietor & others vs authorised officer ICICI bank ltd ; once tribunal found that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the SARFASI application , it is not empowered to pass any order touching upon merits of case
[2/7, 15:37] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC SC 27 : mathew varghese vs Amritha kumari : section 13(8) engrafted in SARFASI act primarily enacted with a view to protect rights of a borrower
[2/7, 15:37] Vinothpandian: 2017 (2) DRTC 277 : Bhagwati printers pvt ltd vs IDBI bank ltd : An order rejecting or granting an application for condonation of delay in filing an application under sec 17 SARFASI act is an order under section 17 of the act , it would be appealable under section 18 of the act
[2/8, 10:15] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) DRTC 829 : moin leather wear exports & others vs oriental bank of commerce : while deciding on an application to set aside the exparte order , DRT under guise of setting aside ex parte order cannot recover amount in the form of passing conditional orders , without taking up the matter on merits
[2/8, 10:15] Vinothpandian: 2017 (2) DRTC 629 : panther fin cap & management services ltd vs bank of india : procedure for execution of decree taking recourse to provisions of CPC cannot be equated with proceedings for recovery under a certificate issued by debt recovery tribunal
[2/8, 10:50] Vinothpandian: 2016 (1) DRTC 425 : sudha sharma & another vs punjab national bank : provision of section 13 of SARFASI act not dependent on any other provision of law , complete code in itself to enforce security interest , neither sec 41 of TP act nor sec 125 of the companies act are applicable
[2/8, 10:50] Vinothpandian: 2013 (2) DRTC 114 : Nippo foods vs state of punjab : In a suit for recovery of bank dues , liability of guarantor dependent upon liability of borrower
[2/9, 10:22] Vinothpandian: Supreme court judgement : civil appeal no 901 of 2022 dated 3- 02 – 2022 New Okhla industrial development authority vs yunus : In a land acquisition proceedings award passed by lok Adalat cannot form basis for redetermination of compensation
[2/9, 10:22] Vinothpandian: Supreme court judgement: SLP ( civil ) No 9496 of 2020 dated 4- 02 – 2022 Ajanta LLP vs casino keisanki kabushiki computer ltd : consent decree cannot be modified / altered unless the mistake is patent or obvious mistake ( order 23 rule 3 CPC 1908 )
