Mhc adv vinoth pandian 44 tips 12/19, 11:13] Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) DRTC 658 : Tushar P shah vs IARC p ltd : With regard to powers of Debt recovery tribunal to execute decree where secured assets situated exclusively in another state , decree may be executed either by the court which passed it or by court to which it is sent for execution
[12/19, 11:13] Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) DRTC 658 : Tushar P shah vs IARC p ltd : With regard to powers of Debt recovery tribunal to execute decree where secured assets situated exclusively in another state , decree may be executed either by the court which passed it or by court to which it is sent for execution
[12/19, 11:13] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) DRTC 801v: sterlite technologies ltd vs union of india : Elements of a prima facie case and question.of financial hardship required to be considered by debt recovery appellate tribunal while considering application for waiver
[12/19, 11:13] Vinothpandian: 2016 (2) DRTC 289 : sundaram.BNP paribas home finance ltd malappuram vs nisha : Recovery proceedings initiated under SARFASI.act , only prayer in writ court that petitioner may be permitted to clear outstanding amount due to bank in easy instalments , writ.court exercised its discretion in granting ten instalments to pay entire outstanding amount along with interest accrued , interest of bank protected
[12/19, 11:13] 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
[12/19, 11:13] Vinothpandian: 2017 (2) DRTC 629 : Panther fin cap & management services ltd vs bank of india : Debt recovery tribunal is not a civil court and provisions of CPC cannot be straight way made applicable to proceedings in respect of recovery of amount by recovery officer exercising powers under RDDBFI act
[12/19, 11:13] Vinothpandian: 2013 (1) CTC 399 : Gian chand & brothers and another vs Rattan lal @ Rattan singh : Burden of proving fraud , undue influence or misrepresentation lies on the person making it , while burden of proof never shifts , onus of proof shifts , 2006 (5) SCC 558 relied upon
[12/19, 11:13] Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) DRTC 104 : mohinder pal singh vs state bank of india : section 13 (7) of the SARFASI act authorises secured creditor to claim charges , costs, and expenses which are actually incurred
[12/19, 11:13] Vinothpandian: 2004 (12) SCC 336 : Damodar vs state of Rajasthan : Any telephonic information about commission of cognizable offence irrespective of nature and details of such information cannot be treated as FIR
[12/19, 11:13] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) DRTC 748 : S Anandan & others vs state bank of india : loan contracted for poultry purposes , bank cannot charge interest at compound rate from date of suit , since it is borrowed for agricultural industrial purpose only ( sec 34 RDDBFI act 1993 )
[12/20, 14:12] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) SCC 297 : HG Rangangoud vs state trading corp of india ltd : fair reporting of court proceedings and fair comments on legal issue does not amount to contempt
[12/20, 14:12] Vinothpandian: 2017 (2) CCC 118 SC : Jsw infrastructure ltd vs kakinada seaports ltd : superior courts must act with restraint in contractual matters
[12/20, 14:12] Vinothpandian: 2016 (4) SCC 160 : Dharam pal vs state of haryana : In an investigation or transfer of proceedings , stage of case need not be a governing factor
[12/20, 14:12] Vinothpandian: 1996 (9) SCC 74 : secretary , Hailakandi bar association vs state of assam : Belated apology cannot be accepted in a contempt proceedings , because it is presumed not been given in good faith
[12/20, 14:12] Vinothpandian: 2019 (1) MLJ 572 : shanmugha raja @ Raja vs shanthakumari : persons not able to invoke hindu marriage act , special marriage act , christian marriage act and divorce act can invoke jurisdiction with family court under section 7 of the family courts act 1984
[12/20, 14:12] Vinothpandian: 2020 (4) CTC 497 : Ravindranath GE medical associates pvt ltd vs P Raja rao : order 39 CPC 1908 : Relief of injunction cannot be granted in favour of persons who come to court without bonafide
[12/20, 14:12] Vinothpandian: 2000 (8) SCC 131 : PP unnikrishnan vs puttiyottil Alikutty : A police officer assaulting a person in lock up cannot claim that he did the act of assaulting in discharge of his duty
[12/20, 14:12] Vinothpandian: 2012(4) SCC 547 : state of orissa vs ujjal kumar burdhan : existence of an arbitration Agreement cannot take criminal acts out of jurisdiction of courts of law
[12/20, 14:12] Vinothpandian: 1995 (1) RCR 210 SC : chandra shashi vs Anil.kumar verma : An apology merely to protect against rigorous of law is not apology
[12/20, 14:12] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) CCC 60 SC : SJ coke industries pvt ltd vs central coalfield ltd : state should not rely on technicalities to defeat just and legitimate claim of citizens
[12/20, 14:12] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC 423 ; Thakur lal dhakad vs state bank of india : freezing of sons account by the bank for default committed by the parents is without authority of law and cannot be sustained
[12/20, 14:12] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) DRTC : K padma vs k Ramachandran : Property attached in favour of bank earlier to alleged agreement for sale , provisions of section 64 of CPC not applicable
[12/21, 10:24] Vinothpandian: 2016 (1) CCC 510 : Notified area council vs Titilagarh club : order 8 rule 9 CPC prohibits any pleadings subsequent to written statement of a defendant being filed other than by way of defence to a set off or counterclaim except by leave of court and upon such terms as court thinks fit
[12/21, 10:24] 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
[12/21, 10:24] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC 810 ( delhi ) : Dena bank vs AAIFR : An interim order is only an aid or an arrangement which entitles parties to main proceedings to work out modalities till final adjudication , till measures taken by the bank under sec 13(4) of SARFASI act are set aside , it cannot be said to be invalid or illegal
[12/21, 10:24] Vinothpandian: 2018 (16) SCC 408 : shafin jahan vs Asokan KM and others : Parental love cannot be allowed to fluster the right of choice of an adult in choosing a man to whom she gets married
[12/21, 10:24] 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 )
[12/21, 10:24] Vinothpandian: 2014 (5) SCC 181 : sujoy kumar chanda vs damayanti majhi : unless facts disclose a designed effort to frustrate the cause of justice with malafide , harsh comments should not be made on subordinate courts
[12/21, 10:24] 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
[12/21, 10:24] Vinothpandian: 2014 (4) CCC 99 : Rajal @ suman vs state of Rajasthan : female child despite gaining majority is entitled to receive maintainence from her father till date of her marriage ( sec 125 CRPC 1973 )
[12/22, 15:33] Vinothpandian: 2011 (14) SCC 615 : Punjab state warehousing corp vs sh durga ji traders : An order of exemption from personal appearance continues to be in force till it is revoked or recalled
[12/22, 15:33] Vinothpandian: 2021 (4) CTC 495 : Vinod kumar IAS vs union of india : Dismissal of an earlier petition under sec 482 CRPC not a bar for filing subsequent petition if factual submissions in the petition is justifiable
[12/22, 15:33] Vinothpandian: 2013 (3) RCR (cri ) 76 : Prem kaur vs state of punjab : In a judgement , absence of sound reasons is not a mere irregularity , but a patent illegality
[12/22, 15:33] Vinothpandian: 2018 (5) CTC 99 : Anurag mittal vs shaily mishra mittal SC : ” Absolute withdrawal is different from withdrawal after taking permission of court ( order 23 rule 1 CPC 1908 )
[12/22, 15:33] Vinothpandian: 2013 (6) CTC 227 : omprakash vs laxminarayan : Recitals in document may not be conclusive proof but shall prevail when deciding admissibilty of document
[12/23, 11:22] Vinothpandian: 2016 (1) DRTC 509 : sany heavy industry india pvt ltd vs tata capital ltd : section 3 of interest act confers on court to allow interest , further section 34 of CPC also empowers court to award interest on a money decree
[12/23, 11:22] Vinothpandian: 2015 (1) DRTC 79 : IDEB projects pvt ltd vs HDFC bank ltd : Regarding cross examination of a witness in drt , satisfaction of tribunal about necessity being crucial to making of an order for cross examination of a witness ( DRT rules 1993 rule 12 (6)
[12/23, 11:22] Vinothpandian: 2021 ( 3) CTC 920 SC : sanjiv prakash vs seema kukreja : Held court in an application under section 11 of the arbitration and coincilation act 1996 not to conduct a mini trial so as to usurp jurisdiction of arbitral tribunal
[12/23, 11:22] Vinothpandian: 2021 (3) CTC 59 : Padmanabhan K vs Assistant commissioner / zonal officer zone 5 corporation of chennai : compassionate appointment cannot be demanded as a matter of right
[12/24, 11:15] Vinothpandian: 2017 (1) CTC 414 ; satyapal anand vs state of MP SC : functions of registrar is purely administrative in nature and not quasi judicial function ( registration act 1908 sec 34 )
[12/24, 11:15] Vinothpandian: 2018 (5) CTC 717 : Ganesan K vs Government of tamil nadu rep by its chief secretary : motive of giving or securing bribe relating to promise of favourable official act is sufficient to constitute bribe
[12/24, 11:15] Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) CTC 1 ( DB) : AK Balaji vs government of india : foreign law firms or foreign lawyers cannot practice profession of law in india either on litgation or non ltigation side unless they fulfil requirements of acts and rules
[12/24, 11:15] Vinothpandian: 2017 (1) CTC 752 : muralidharan K vs chief manager Repco home finance ltd : chief judicial magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass orders under section 14 of SARFASI when mortgaged property is not situated within territorial jurisdiction of a metropolitan city
[12/24, 11:15] Vinothpandian: 2004 (4) crimes 277 : V Raja kumari vs P subbarama naidu : In a proceedings under NI act non – service of notice is not a ground for rejecting complaint even before it is numbered
[12/24, 11:15] Vinothpandian: 2006 (2) SCC 677 : Ramesh kumari vs state ( NCT of delhi ) : genuineness or credibility of information not a condition precedent for registration of a case that can only be considered after registration of the case
