sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/Ugkx5XipaT8-TFGgNeJfrFDpuK7VeOXjs7K0?si=vnThCG4FTR-x0Ac4 [26/11, 10:45] sekarreporter1: [26/11, 10:44] Vinothpandian: 2021 (2) CTC 600 : kotak mahindra bank pvt ltd vs Ambuj A kasliwal SC : ordinarily deposit of 50% of decretal amount due mandatory under sec 21 of RDDBFI act , but in appropriate cases for reasons to be recorded deposit of at least 25% permissible

[26/11, 10:45] sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/Ugkx5XipaT8-TFGgNeJfrFDpuK7VeOXjs7K0?si=vnThCG4FTR-x0Ac4
[26/11, 10:45] sekarreporter1: [26/11, 10:44] Vinothpandian: 2021 (2) CTC 600 : kotak mahindra bank pvt ltd vs Ambuj A kasliwal SC : ordinarily deposit of 50% of decretal amount due mandatory under sec 21 of RDDBFI act , but in appropriate cases for reasons to be recorded deposit of at least 25% permissible
[26/11, 10:44] Vinothpandian: 2020 (4) CTC 497 : Ravindranath GE medical associates pvt ltd chennai vs P Raja rao : while granting interim injunction or continuing existing injunction , court must see if there is bonafide contest between parties , court must also find which side balance of convenience lies ( order 39 CPC 1908 )
[26/11, 10:44] Vinothpandian: 2002 (3) RCR ( criminal ) 43 ( DB ) : uniplas india ltd vs state : mere breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention was alleged right at the beginining of transaction
[26/11, 10:44] Vinothpandian: 2017 (6) CTC 187 : vijay singh vs shanti devi SC : once ex parte decree is set aside , parties would be relegated to position at which they were when ex parte decree was passed ( order 9 rule 13 CPC 1908 )
[26/11, 10:44] Vinothpandian: 2019 (5) CTC 97 : sarojinidevi A rep by power agent vs R Arumugam : code of civil procedure and civil rules of practice permits appearance of non – advocate to conduct litigation