Law tips Vinothpandian: 2016 (3) CCC 148 : M chinna karuppasamy vs kanimozhi : If charge of adultery is proved as against the wife , she is not entitled to get any amount as maintenance ( sec 125 ( 4) CRPC 1973 )

[11/3, 15:22] Vinothpandian: 2016 (3) CCC 148 : M chinna karuppasamy vs kanimozhi : If charge of adultery is proved as against the wife , she is not entitled to get any amount as maintenance ( sec 125 ( 4) CRPC 1973 )
[11/3, 15:22] Vinothpandian: 2017 (1) CCC 642 : Pritimaya giri vs satish kumar agarwalla : Magistrate in cases relating to offences under sec 138 NI act need not insist on the personal attendance of the accused ( sec 205 CRPC 1973 )
[11/3, 15:22] Vinothpandian: 2015 (1) CCC 183 SC : punjab state power corporation ltd vs punjab state electricity regulatory commission : interest of consumers to be balanced with recovery of cost of electricity in a reasonable manner ( electricity act 2003 sec 61 ( g) )
[11/3, 15:22] Vinothpandian: 2003 (3) RCR ( criminal ) 354 SC : Narendera nath khaware vs parasnath khaware : state not filing any special leave petition or appeal , an appeal by special leave at the instance of complainant is maintainable
[11/3, 15:22] Vinothpandian: 2008 (4) RCR ( criminal ) SC : Lalliram vs state of MP : A decision has to be considered in the background of the factual scenario , in criminal cases the question of a precedent particularly relating to appreciation of evidence is really of no consequence
[11/4, 10:54] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) DRTC 729 ; kotak mahindra bank ltd vs kothari industrial corporation : If tribunals and subordinate courts are allowed to function without following binding observations of superior courts there will be judicial chaos
[11/4, 10:54] Vinothpandian: 2016 (1) DRTC 270 : Pushpinder kaur vs punjab and sindh bank : Held absence of counsel due to strike call cannot be a legal and valid or sufficient ground for recalling order passed dismissing appeal for non – prosecution
[11/4, 10:54] Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) MWN ( cri ) 1 ( DB ) : state rep by inspector of police vs VP pandi : facts indisputably widely known to public can be taken judicial notice of by court
[11/4, 10:54] Vinothpandian: AIR 2019 SC 1692 : kaikhosrou kavasji framji vs union of india :Held for doctrine of merger to operate , superior court must go into merits of issues decided by subordinate court and record findings on its merits , in absence of same , order of subordinate court continues to hold field
[11/4, 10:54] Vinothpandian: 2017 (2) DRTC 784 : Dipankar chakraborty vs Allahabad bank : sec 19 RDDBFI act : Pendency of proceeding before DRT under RDDBFI.act will not save period of limitation for a proceeding under SARFASI act , if proceeding under SARFASI act is by itself barred by laws of limitation
[11/4, 10:54] Vinothpandian: 2016 (2) DRTC 128 : state bank of india vs Veetee fine foods ltd : When bank or parties seek stamp of approval of compromise or settlement , then tribunal would be competent to examine said settlement or compromise in terms of sec 19 ( 20- A ) of RDDBFI act
[11/5, 11:47] Vinothpandian: 2007(11) SCC 297 ; madhumilan syntex ltd vs union of india : income tax / failure to pay tax deducted at source ,levy of penalty for non – payment of tax does not affect power to prosecute accused persons
[11/5, 11:47] Vinothpandian: 2014(5) SCC 139 : sasi enterprises vs assistant commissoner of income tax : income tax / failure to file return , declaration or statement made in indivdual returns by partners that accounts of firm are not finalized ,hence no return has been filed by firm will not absolve firm in filing the statutory return under sec 139(1) of the IT act
[11/5, 11:47] Vinothpandian: 2001 (3) SCC 459 : income tax / commissioner of income tax vs bhupen champak lal dalal : stay of criminal prosecution ,grant of interim order of stay when ultimately the result of proceedings before income – tax appellate authority have a definite bearing on the criminal cases alleged against assesses is permissible and proper
[11/5, 11:47] Vinothpandian: 2013(1) crimes 208 : lokesh kirankumar shah vs shraddha lokesh shah : once legal provision has been interpreted by supreme court of india after considering all aspects of matter such interpretation made by supreme court would be binding on all courts within the territory of india
[11/5, 11:47] Vinothpandian: 2016(1) MLJ ( cri ) 1 : V vinod kumar vs V Arunadevi : Any observation made by high court ,while disposing of habeas corpus petition would not curtail the rights of an aggrieved person to seek for interim custody of child under section 21 of the domestic violence act
[11/5, 11:47] Vinothpandian: 2012(8) SCC 441 : Avishek goenka vs union of india : once supreme court interprets a provision of law ,law so declared would be law of land in terms of art 141 of the constitution of india
[11/5, 11:47] Vinothpandian: 2014(3) SCC 389 : Vijayander kumar vs state of Rajasthan : only because a civil remedy may also be available to complainant that itself cannot be a ground to quash a criminal proceedings
[11/5, 11:47] Vinothpandian: 2009 CRILJ 1742 : state of punjab vs pritam chand : merely because an act has a civil profile is not sufficient to denude it of its criminal outfit
[11/7, 10:43] Vinothpandian: 2008 (4) SCC 300 : krishna kumar Birla vs Rajendra singh ( para 124) : what could be done and has not been done by a court of equity does not create a precedent , it does not even have a persusaive value
[11/7, 10:43] Vinothpandian: 1982 (2) SCC 396 ; mayur panabhai shah vs state of gujarat : No presumption that the doctor is always a witness of truth , the evidence of a doctor has to be appreciated like any other witness
[11/7, 10:43] Vinothpandian: 2012 (3) SCC 522 : state of gujarat vs Essar oil ltd : Held in construing an exemption provision , question of equity does not arise , exception or exemption provision held must be construed strictly
[11/7, 10:43] Vinothpandian: 2020 (6) CTC 777 : chennai metro rail ltd vs lanco infratech ltd : Interim orders passed under section 9 of the arbitration and coincilation act cannot upset orders passed by tribunal
[11/7, 10:43] Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) DRTC 412 : sundaram BNP paribas home finance ltd vs Mir ali : loan amount secured by mortgage , cannot seek prohibitory order against garnishee by way of interim measure of protection under sec 9 of the arbitration and coincilation act 1996
[11/7, 10:43] Vinothpandian: 2014 (1) DRTC 633 : Dr PB health and glow clinic ltd vs oriental bank of commerce : notice duly served in presence of occupants of secured assets ( section 13 (2) SARFASI act ) counting of 45 days for preferring appeal under section 17 will be from date of service of notice by affixation and not from date when matter got advertised
[11/8, 13:55] Vinothpandian: AIR 1964 Bom 232; Anand Rao vs Krishnan ji : An order of dismissal for default of an application for restoration of the application for stay of execution is appealable
[11/8, 13:55] Vinothpandian: AIR 1966 Ori 1 : Ramchandra Prasad vs sham biharilal : An appellate court is entitled to take into consideration any change in the law
[11/8, 13:55] Vinothpandian: AIR 2017 SC 1432 : Sasi vs Aravindakshan Nair : An application for review has to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible
[11/8, 13:55] Vinothpandian: AIR 2011 Gau 75 : Biman mahanta vs chenehi Saikia : review of judgement on the ground of sympathy or emotion is not permissible
[11/8, 13:55] Vinothpandian: 2018(8) MLJ 21 SC : shriram EPC Ltd vs Rio glass solar : arbitration and coincilation act 1996 sec 48&49 : Held Award that is referred to in indian stamp act 1899 is an award that is made in territory of India ,award has never included foreign award in schedule 1 of indian stamp act 1899 from very inception till date ,foreign award is not liable for stamp duty
[11/8, 13:55] Vinothpandian: AIR 1974 SC 2086 : Daktar mudi vs state of WB : It is the duty of the court as custodian and sentinel on the every vigilant guard of the freedom of an individual to scrutinise with due care and anxiety ,that this previous right which activities has under the constitution is not in any way taken away capriciously arbitrarily or without legal justification
[11/8, 13:55] Vinothpandian: 1995(3) SCC 507 ; DDA vs skipper construction : An apology tendered at a stage when it was evident that the contemnor was going to be sentenced was held to be not Bonafide
[11/9, 14:42] Vinothpandian: 2013 (4) CCC 315 SC ; kailash vs Nanhku & others : Purpose of providing time schedule for filing written statement under order 8 rule 1 of CPC is to expedite and not to scuttle hearing , provision being in domain of procedural law has to be held directory and not mandatory
[11/9, 14:42] Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) MWN ( cri ) 626 : dhurga vaishnavi shivamoorthi vs murthy : conduct of accused subsequent to release on bail and supervening circumstances alone relevant for cancellation of bail , bail cannot be cancelled if case does not fall within these two heads in view of bar under sec 362 CRPC
[11/9, 14:42] Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) scale 698 : Bir singh vs mukesh kumar : subsequent filling in of an unfilled signed cheque is not an alteration
[11/9, 14:42] Vinothpandian: 2016 (1) CCC 475 ; Dr Bibhas debnath vs state of west bengal : pleadings in a proceedings under sec 125 CRPC are like pleadings in a civil case and pleadings could be amended in appropriate circumstances
[11/9, 14:42] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) CCC 414 : Parasagani venkaiah & another vs Pandi prasad : Records prepared by investigating officer in criminal case cannot be looked into by the accused , except for purposes to mark as contradictions or omissions during trial ( sec 162 CRPC 1973 )
[11/9, 14:42] Vinothpandian: 2013 (4) CCC 461 : Ragni chopra vs Rajesh : To read a particular passage in a document is not a correct method of its interpretation , document is to be read as a whole to gather its true import

You may also like...