Vinothpandian: 2012 (5) SCC 706 : Mrudul M damle vs CBI : In a proceedings relating to transfer of a criminal case , safety convenience of parties including witnesses to be produced at trial are the relevant considerations ( sec 406 CRPC 1973 )

[1/23, 13:58] Vinothpandian: 2012 (5) SCC 706 : Mrudul M damle vs CBI : In a proceedings relating to transfer of a criminal case , safety convenience of parties including witnesses to be produced at trial are the relevant considerations ( sec 406 CRPC 1973 )
[1/23, 13:58] Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) CTC 924 : varun pahwa vs Renu choudhary : power to grant amendment of pleadings is intended to serve ends of justice and not governed by narrow technicalities ( order 6 rule 17 CPC 1908 )
[1/23, 13:58] Vinothpandian: 2018 (6) CTC 510 : puruvankara projects ltd rep by its CEO vs Ranjani venkatraman ganesh ; Re appreciation of evidence like court of appeals not permissible under section 34 of the arbitration and coincilation.act
[1/23, 13:58] Vinothpandian: 2019 (3) CTC 564 : Gnana Arulmoni vs RS maharajan : Held conduct of plaintiff most important factor for grant of equitable relief of specific performance ( specific relief act 1963 section 16 ( c )
[1/23, 13:58] Vinothpandian: 2015 (7) SCC 178 : Tomaso bruno vs state of UP : In a proceedings electronic documents in strict sense are admitted as material evidence
[1/23, 13:58] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) crimes 80 : mangat Ram vs state of Haryana : failure of a married person to take his wife along with him to the place where he is working or posted would not amount to cruelty .
[1/23, 13:58] Vinothpandian: 2007 (5) SCC 228 : N Devindrappa vs state of karnataka : An act can result in both civil and criminal liability , merely in this case , act of the litigant has civil liability that does not mean that it cannot have criminal liability also
[1/24, 16:19] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) SCC 520 : Anita malhotra vs Apparel export promotion council : certified copy of a annual return of a company is a public document ( section 74 evidence act 1872 )
[1/24, 16:19] Vinothpandian: 2017 (1) CCC 532 : Buddha jagadeeswara rao vs sri ravi enterprises : courts obliged to intimate registrar office after cancellation of an instrument of transfer of any immovable property , section.49 of the indian registration act permits admission of unregistered documents in evidence for collateral purposes , but it should be duly stamped
[1/24, 16:19] Vinothpandian: 2011 (1) crimes 294 : Achuthanandan vs R Balakrishna pillai : In a corruption case appellate court has full power to review , re appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which if an acquittal order is founded , criminal procedure code put no restrictions , however appellate court must bear in mind that in cases of acquittal , there is double presumption in favour of the accused
[1/24, 16:19] Vinothpandian: 2019 (3) MWN ( cr ) 491 : Mahipal vs Rajesh kumar SC : mere recording of ” having perused the record ” and ” on facts and circumstances of case does not subserve purpose of reasoned order , non – furnishing of reasons leads to presumption of non – application of mind warranting interference ( sec 439 CRPC 1973 )
[1/24, 16:19] Vinothpandian: 2019 (6) CTC 442 : nissan motors corporate office vs S giri prasad : With regard to summoning of an accused in a criminal case , order must reflect about application of mind to facts of case and law applicable thereto , when magistrate did not record basis of taking cognizance and simply ordered to issue summons to accused , complaint held liable to be quashed
[1/24, 16:19] Vinothpandian: 2013(1) DRTC 761 : Ratan kumar & others vs state bank of india : Any third party right created after issuance of notice under section 13(2) of SARFASI act has to be ignored
[1/24, 16:19] Vinothpandian: 2012 (8) SCC 537 : state of UP vs sanjay kumar : life imprisonment cannot be equivalent to imprisonment for 14 years or 20 years , rather it always meant as the whole natural life
[1/24, 16:19] Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) CTC 481 : Abul kalam azad AL vs AL jawaharlal rep by its power agent A sowkath ALi : Award of lok adalat can be challenged only by filing writ petition under art 226 or 227 of constitution on very limited grounds