Avocate vinoth pandian law tips judgements last 10 days

[11/20, 10:22] Vinothpandian: 2000 (8) SCC 740 : Basavaraj R patil vs state of karnataka : provisions of sec 313 of CRPC are not meant to nail the accused to his disadvantage but are meant for his benefit
[11/20, 10:22] Vinothpandian: 1969 CRI LJ 654 : Bibhuti bhusan das gupta vs state of west bengal : pleader cannot represent accused for questioning of accused under sec 313 CRPC 1973
[11/20, 10:22] Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) crimes 193 : manju devi vs state of Rajasthan : Age of a case by itself cannot be decisive of the matter when a prayer is made for examination of a material witness
[11/22, 12:21] Vinothpandian: 1995 (3) SCC 252 : P udayani devi vs VV Rajeshwara prasad Rao : A sale certificate is an important document which confirms sale of a property and its proper execution , it confirms the title of owner therefore it cannot be taken in light sense
[11/22, 12:21] Vinothpandian: 2011 (11) SCC 578 : manjit singh vs CBI : when language of any statute is ambiguous , jurisdiction of the court can be invoked for purpose of interpreting said statute
[11/22, 12:21] Vinothpandian: AIR 1959 SC 1331 : Br india general insurance co vs capt Itbar singh : The court cannot add words to a section unless the section as it stands is meaningless or of doubtful.meaning
[11/22, 12:26] Vinothpandian: 2004 (1) SCC 119 : Apangshu mohan lodh vs state of tripura : Power to condone delay is discretionary and is to be liberally construed
[11/23, 10:10] Vinothpandian: 2014 (9) SCC 230 : sanjay kumar vs state of bihar : pleadings have to be true to the knowledge of parties and in case a person takes such misleading pleadings he can be refused not only any kind of indulgence by court but can also be tried for perjury
[11/23, 10:10] Vinothpandian: 2012 (6) SCC 369 : chandra kr chopra vs UOI : mere suspicion or apprehension is not good enough to entertain a plea of bias
[11/23, 12:22] Vinothpandian: 2013 (10) SCC 581 : vinod Raghuvanshi vs Ajay arora : when a prosecution at initial stage is to be quashed , the test to be applied by court is whether uncontroverted allegations as made , prima facie establish the offence
[11/23, 12:22] Vinothpandian: 2009(3) SCC 789 : Ashabai machindra Adhagale vs state of maharastra : Inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution
[11/24, 16:00] Vinothpandian: 2016 (4) SCC 160 : dharam pal vs state of haryana : With regard to investigation stage of case cannot be a governing factor
[11/24, 16:00] Vinothpandian: 2003 (6) SCC 195 : union of india vs prakash P Hinduja : Any illegality in an investigation does not vitiate the trial , unless it has caused a miscarriage of justice
[11/24, 16:00] Vinothpandian: 2015 (1) crimes 13 : sunita kachwaha vs Anil kachwaha : In a matrimonial proceeding , ” inability to maintain is a pre- condition for grant of maintenance to wife
[11/24, 16:00] Vinothpandian: 2005 (4) SCC 468 : shantha alias ushadevi vs BG shivananjappa : liability to pay maintenance under sec 125 CRPC is in the nature of a continuing liability
[11/25, 10:46] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) DRTC 460 : maa shakum bhari synthetic ltd vs canara bank : notice is to be served on each and every person involved in transaction ( SARFASI act 2002 sec 13 (2) )
[11/25, 10:46] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC 426 ; madhuri devi vs dena bank : once objection is filed by the borrower against notice issued under section 13 (2) of SARFASI act , bank is obliged to file reply to same as per sec 13 (3-A) SARFASI act
[11/25, 14:30] Vinothpandian: 2015 (1) DRTC 66 : shanti jaiswal & another vs state bank of india : Debt recovery tribunal or recovery officer cannot go behind decree / certificate / orders , recovery officer is bound to execute it ( sec 27 RDDBFI act 1993 )
[11/25, 15:10] Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) CTC 481 : Abdul kalam Azad AL vs AL jawaharlal rep by power agent : Award of lok adalat can be challenged only by filing writ petition under article 226 or 227 of constitution on very limited grounds
[11/26, 09:52] Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) DRTC 104 : mohinder pal singh vs state bank of india : In a SARFASI execution , bank engaging enforcement agency and claiming amount paid to such agency from borrower is untenable , bank cannot claim interest on expenses
[11/26, 09:52] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) DRTC 671 : mohan products pvt ltd vs state bank of india : With regard recovery proceedings initiated by bank , bank has right to publish name of defaulter , description of immovable property to be sold , amount of secured debt , reserve price , time and place of auction and earnest money
[11/26, 09:52] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC 1 SC : Harshad govardhan sondagar vs IARC ltd and others : A lease of secured asset made by borrower after he receives notice under sec 13(2) of SARFASI act from secured creditor intending to enforce that secured asset will not be valid lease
[11/26, 10:05] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC 274 : deepti trading co rep by its proprietor 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 ( sec 13 (2) & 13(4) SARFASI act )
[11/27, 10:46] Vinothpandian: 2000(5) SCC 64 : Ramavilasom grandhasala vs NSS karayogam : framing of substantial question of law is a must to acquire jurisdiction to decide second appeal ( sec 100 CPC 1908 )
[11/27, 10:46] Vinothpandian: AIR 1999 SC 1104 : Teherakhatoon vs salambin mohammad : disposal of second appeal without framing substantial question of law not permissible ( sec 100 CPC 1908)
[11/27, 11:57] Vinothpandian: 2014 (1) DRTC 576 : sahara industries ,patrampur road jaspur vs state bank of india : RDDBFI act as well as SARFASI act being complementary to each other , there is no provision in either of acts to debar initiation of a proceeding under SARFASI act during pendency of proceeding under RDDBFI act
[11/27, 12:03] Vinothpandian: 2013 (1) DRTC 799 : bharat minerals grinding industries vs state of jharkhand : secured creditor has to communicate within one week of receipt of representation / objection of borrower , reasons for non – acceptance of objections ( sec 13 SARFASI act 2002 )
[11/29, 10:10] Vinothpandian: 2017 (2) DRTC 244 : B Rajarajeshwari vs presiding officer drt 2 : A litigant should not be put in a disadvantages situation by act of court , sec 152 of CPC equally applies to sec 26(2) and (3) of RDDBFI act 1993
[11/29, 10:23] Vinothpandian: 2016 (1) DRTC 425 : sudha sharma & another vs punjab national bank : provision of sec 13 of SARFASI act not dependent on any other provision of law , complete code in itself to enforce security interest ,
[11/29, 11:27] Vinothpandian: 2007 (4) crimes 244 : sarav investment & FCPL vs lyods register of shipping IOSPF : In a cheque dishonour case service of notice is a part of cause of action for lodging complaint
[11/29, 11:27] Vinothpandian: 2014 (12) SCC 685 : Ajeet seeds ltd vs K gopala krishnaiah : In a cheque dishonour case service of notice is a matter of evidence and proof and it would be premature at the stage of issuance of process to move the high court for quashing the proceedings under sec 482 CRPC
[11/29, 12:14] Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) CTC 294 : SCG contracts india pvt ltd vs Ks chamankar infrastructure pvt ltd : with regard to resjudicata , when earlier orders were rendered under erroneous application interpreation of law of statutory prohibition , res judicata held inapplicable ( sec 11 CPC 1908 )
[11/30, 15:20] Vinothpandian: 2018 CRILJ 3769 : SS Binu vs state of west bengal : Every inquiry other than trial conducted by the magistrate or court is an inquiry under section 200 CRPC
[11/30, 15:20] Vinothpandian: 2018 CRI LJ 1557 : khumukcham nikita devi vs state of manipur : A victim can engage a lawyer of her choice to assist the prosecution with the permission of the court ( sec 301 CRPC 1973 )
[11/30, 15:20] Vinothpandian: 2018 (1) crimes 125 : shathi mohammad vs state of himachal pradesh : Electronic record can be proved only as per section 65 – B of the evidence act
[11/30, 15:43] Vinothpandian: AIR 2018 MP 134 : Ganesh shri balaji constructions C class contractor vs executive engineer PWD : Arbitrators are appointed by parties to do justice in sense of arriving at fair decision and not in sense of judicial justice , arbitrator is not bound by strict law of evidence
[12/1, 10:24] Vinothpandian: 2018 CRI LJ 781 : lodha bara vs state of orissa : The information given by the accused might be confessional or non – inculpatory in nature but if it results in discovery of a fact , it becomes a reliable information ( sec 27 evidence act 1872 )
[12/1, 10:24] Vinothpandian: 2018 (5) SCC 435 : sudhakar alias sudharasan vs state rep by inspector of police , srirangam police station : In a case under sec 302 IPC if trustworthiness of witnesses are lacking , conviction of accused is not sustainable in the eye of law
[12/1, 14:14] Vinothpandian: 2018 (5) SCC 311 : shafhi mohammad vs state of himachal pradesh : In a case where electronic evidence is produced by a party who is not in posession of a device , applicability of section 63 and section 65 of the evidence act cannot be held to be excluded
[12/1, 14:18] Vinothpandian: AIR 2011 SC 1232 : vishnu agarwal vs state of UP : section 362 of CRPC cannot be considered in a rigid and over technical manner to defeat the ends of justice
[12/1, 14:21] Vinothpandian: 2018 (3) crimes 491 : mohammed zakir vs shabana : High court should not exercise their power under section 362 CRPC for correction of a case on merits
[12/2, 15:05] Vinothpandian: 2015 (9) SCC 609 : SR sukumar vs S sunaad Raghuram : cognizance of offence means taking notice of accusations and applying the judicial mind to the contents of complaint and material filed therewith
[12/2, 15:05] Vinothpandian: 2010 (8) SCC 673 : Biman basu vs kallol guha thakurta : petition to take action against a person under sec 15 of contempt of courts act without written consent of advocate general not maintainable in law
[12/2, 15:05] Vinothpandian: 2011 (5) SCC 496 : muthu karuppan vs parithi illamvazhuthi ; law does not permit imposing any punishment in contempt proceedings on mere probabilities , equally the court cannot punish alleged contemnor without any foundation merely on conjectures and surmises
[12/2, 15:05] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) SCC 297 : HG Ranganoud vs state trading corp of india ltd : fair reporting of court proceedings and fair comments on legal issue does not amount to contempt
[12/3, 11:40] Vinothpandian: 2006 (4) crimes 326 : B Noha vs state of kerala : With regard to criminal misconduct of public servant , burden lies on public servant to show that receipt of a payment not by way of illegal gratification
[12/3, 11:46] Vinothpandian: 2008 (5) SCC 697 : Dinesh borthakur vs state of Assam : Regard to a criminal offence conduct or reaction by itself no ground to conclude that accused committed the crime
[12/3, 11:46] Vinothpandian: 2007 (1) SCC 1 : Parkash singh badal vs state of punjab : where a criminal act performed under colour of authority but in reality for the public servants own pleasure or benefit , such act not protected by principle of state immunity and no sanction required for prosecution
[12/6, 11:01] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) DRTC 841 ; k sami vs branch manager , bank of india : mere decision of financial institution to approach the magistrate under sec 14 of SARFASI act would also constitute a measure under sec 13(4) of the SARFASI act
[12/6, 11:01] Vinothpandian: 2015 (1) DRTC 512 : Punjab national bank vs Rishika & others : civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain suit and restrain bank from alienating property for making recovery under section 13 (4) of the SARFASI act , jurisdiction of civil court in respect of measures taken under sec 13(4) of the SARFASI act expressly barred
[12/6, 13:38] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC 758 : state bank of india vs nivrutti haribhau tupe & another : Name sake appeal before registry without attending same for year lead to wasting litigants time , matter protracted by bank itself for obvious reasons , cost of Rs 10000 imposed on bank , appeal dismissed ( DRAT RDDBFI act 1993 sec 20)
[12/6, 15:26] Vinothpandian: 2016 (9) SCC 1 : manoj kumar sharma vs state of chattisgarh : To invoke inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the CRPC , the high court must be fully satisfied that material produced on record is based on sound , justifiable and reasonable facts
[12/6, 15:29] Vinothpandian: 2012 (9) SCC 532 : Gajoo vs state of uttarakhand : In a trial proceedings a witness may be called interested only when he or she derives some benefit from result of litigation
[12/7, 14:29] Vinothpandian: AIR 2018 SC 980 : dataram singh vs state of uttar pradesh : With regard to a bail application , freedom of an indivdual is of utmost importance and same cannot be curtailed merely on suspicion , till the time guilt of accused is not proved in accordance with law , he is deemed to be innocent , on such grounds bail can be granted
[12/7, 14:29] Vinothpandian: 2018 (2) crimes 376 : seema singh vs CBI : with regard to bail , seriousness of offence by itself cannot be a ground to outrightly deny the benefit of bail if there are other overwhelming circumstances justifying grant of bail
[12/7, 14:29] Vinothpandian: 2018 (1) crimes 91 : Lachhman dass vs Resham chand kaler : It is not expected from the high court to pass mandatory orders commanding the subordinate court to compulsorily grant bail
[12/7, 14:39] Vinothpandian: 2012 (4) SCC 134 : Dipak shubhash chandra mehta vs CBI : It is a settled principle that when under – trial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period , article 21 of constitution is violated
[12/7, 15:02] Vinothpandian: 2020 (4) CTC 810 : louis sinnaya arokiasamy vs vengadachalam : sec 151 CPC 1908 : Held party which has not approached court with clean hands is not entitled to indulgence of court
[12/7, 15:02] Vinothpandian: AIR 1997 AP 53 : Habeeb khan vs valasula devi : order 6 rule 2 CPC 1908 : Evidence presented before court should be according to the pleadings , irrelevant evidence should be avoided during specific pleadings
[12/8, 10:37] Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) SCC 196 ; Rasiklal manickchand dhariwal vs MSS food products : Held idea behind provision of order 18 rule 15 CPC is to obviate recording of evidence or re hearing of suit where a judge is prevented by death , transfer or other cause from concluding trial of a suit and to take suit forward from the stage predecessor judge left the matter
[12/8, 10:38] Vinothpandian: 2012 (6) SCC 430 : A shanmugam vs Ariya kshatriya Rajakula vamsathu madalaya nandhavana : With regard to granting Ad interim injunction , held pleadings need to be critically examined by judicial officers or judges both before issuing ad interim injunction ( order 39 rule 1 & 2 CPC 1908 )