Mhc advocate vinothpandian 123 Law tips

[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: 2009(3) SCC 789 : Ashabai machindra Adhagale vs state of maharastra : Inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution
[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
[11/24, 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: 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: 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: 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 )
[12/8, 14:00] Vinothpandian: 2019 CRILJ 3129 : 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
[12/8, 14:00] Vinothpandian: 2010 (13) SCC 657 : sunil kumar sambu dayal gupta vs state of maharastra : presumption of innocence is a human right , appellate court should not interfere with acquittal order passed by trial court merely because two views are possible in a given case
[12/9, 14:03] Vinothpandian: 2013 (8) SCC 491 : UP power corporation ltd vs Anis ahmad : Held a complaint against assessment made by an assessing officer under sec 126 or against offences committed under sec 135 to 140 of electricity act 2003 is not maintainable before a consumer forum
[12/9, 14:03] Vinothpandian: 2012 (5) SCC 488 : super cassettes industries ltd vs music broadcast pvt ltd : Held in matters under order 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC and sec 151 CPC , an interim relief granting final relief should be given after exercise of great caution and in rare and exceptional cases
[12/9, 14:11] Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) SCC 300 : J samuel vs Gattu mahesh : Held plea that relief sought by way of amendment was barred by time is to be considered in the light of facts and circumstances of each case ( order 6 rule 17 CPC 1908 )
[12/9, 14:11] Vinothpandian: 2014 (3) SCC 595 : state bank of india vs gracure pharmaceuticals ltd : held object of order 2 rule 2 CPC is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and not to vex parties over and again in a litigative process
[12/10, 09:27] Vinothpandian: Supreme court : SLP no 12369 of 2021 dated 8- 12- 2021 Uttar Pradesh state road transport corporation vs Gajadhar nath : With regard to removal from service of an employee , initiation of criminal proceedings against employee or not initiating proceedings has no bearing to prove misconduct in departmental proceedings
[12/10, 09:27] Vinothpandian: Supreme court : civil appeal no 1658 of 2010 dated 30-11-2021 Bombay hospital & medical research centre vs Asha jaiswal : Non availability of operation theatres when patient being taken for surgery not medical negligence on part of hospital
[12/10, 10:04] Vinothpandian: Supreme court : civil appeal no 6707 of 2019 dated 1-12-2021 committee of creditors of Amtek auto ltd through corporation bank vs dinakar T venkatsubramanian : In an IBC proceedings ( insolvency & bankruptcy) , entire resolution process has to be completed within period stipulated under section 12 of IBC and any deviation would defeat object and purpose of providing such time limit
[12/10, 10:04] Vinothpandian: Supreme court: civil appeal no 6374 of 2021 dated 1- 12- 2021 neha tyagi vs lieutenant colonel deepak tyagi : In a matrimonial proceedings pertaining to maintenance, liability and responsibility of father to maintain child continues till children attaining age of majority
[12/11, 10:33] Vinothpandian: 2018 (2) MWN ( cri ) 504 : satpal singh vs state of punjab : satisfaction of court for granting protection under section 438 CRPC 1973 different from one under section 439 CRPC 1973
[12/11, 10:33] Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) CTC 142 : Balambal vs D Prakash : High court in review cannot sit in appeal over its order and rehear issues ( order 47 rule 1 CPC 1908 )
[12/11, 10:33] Vinothpandian: 2015 (4) SCC 164 ; Union of india vs SN maity : In matters pertaining to departmental proceedings , merely because words ” until further orders ” are used would not confer allowance on employer to act with caprice
[12/13, 09:50] Vinothpandian: Supreme court: krishnan & another vs state rep by deputy superintendent of police criminal appeal no 1511 of 2021 dated 29- 11- 2021 : In criminal appeals , exparte enhancement of sentence illegal , in absence of counsels appearing high court should appoint Amicus curiae
[12/13, 09:50] Vinothpandian: Supreme court: civil appeal no 6947 of 2021 dated 23-11- 2021 Uttar Pradesh forest corporation lucknow vs vijay kumar yadav : In disciplinary proceedings , once charge of causing loss proved by enquiry officer , punishment for order for recovery of such loss is mandatory
[12/13, 09:50] Vinothpandian: Supreme court : civil appeal no 6994 of 2021 dated 1- 12 – 2021 Dr G sadasivan nair vs cochin university of science and technology : With regard to decision on pension payments of an employee , pension payable to employee on retirement shall be determined on rules existing at time of retirement
[12/14, 13:22] Vinothpandian: 2007 (5) SCC 103 : Raghu lakshminarayanan vs M / S fine tubes : A business concern is not a company within the meaning of sec 141 of NI act
[12/14, 13:22] Vinothpandian: 2007 (1) crimes 228 : Devender singh vs state of haryana : In dowry death cases , it has been held that demand of monetary assistance for domestic purposes not demand of dowry
[12/14, 13:22] Vinothpandian: 2000 (5) SCC 207 : Kans Raj vs state of punjab : In dowry death cases it has been observed there is a tendency in cases of 498 IPC and 304 B IPC to rope in a large number of in – laws of the victims wife and not only the husband
[12/15, 15:36] Vinothpandian: 2018 (1) SCC (cri) 390 : Asfaq vs state of Rajasthan : By committing a crime a person does not ceases to be a human being , for a prisoner all fundamental rights are an enforceable reality though restricted by the fact of imprisonment
[12/15, 15:36] Vinothpandian: 2018 CRILJ : fakrul islam vs state of Assam : The plea of juvenility can be raised by accused at any stage of the proceedings even after the disposal of case and said plea can be raised before any court ( juvenile justice act section 7- A )
[12/15, 15:36] Vinothpandian: 2018 CRI LJ 1110 : Kavitha G pillai vs joint director , directorate of enforcement : The presumption of innocence and the right to silence are cognate concepts , normally courts cannot be encouraged to hold any suspect guilty merely because he refused to respond to question put up by police or court
[12/15, 15:42] Vinothpandian: 1996 (4) SCC 659 : state of maharastra vs som nath thapa : To establish a charge of conspiracy knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary
[12/16, 14:25] Vinothpandian: 2006 (5) SCC 736 : state of chattisgarh vs lekhram : Register maintained in a school is admissible evidence to prove the date of birth of the person concerned in terms of sec 35 of indian evidence act
[12/16, 14:25] Vinothpandian: 2011 (10) SCC 445 : sadhwi pragyna singh thakur vs state of maharastra : Rights under article 22 (2) of constitution of india is available only against illegal detention by police and it does not operate against judicial order
[12/16, 14:25] Vinothpandian: 2016 (8) SCC 335 : mahipal singh Rana vs state of uttar pradesh : where the bar council fails to take action inspite of reference made to it , the court can exercise suo motu powers for punishing contemnor for professional misconduct
[12/16, 14:45] Vinothpandian: 2011 (8) SCC 434 : state of UP vs Alok verma : merely because a person is in financial crises does not mean that he is at liberty to commit ghastly and gruesome murders
[12/17, 11:07] Vinothpandian: 2011 (8) SCC 679 : Bakshi dev Raj & another vs sudhir kumar : With regard to seeking instructions by counsels from parties , it is always desirable to get instructions in writing ( order 3 rule 1 CPC 1908 )
[12/17, 11:07] Vinothpandian: 2011 (12) SCC 658 : vimleshwar nagappa shet vs Noor ahmad sheriff : A concession made by a counsel on a question of fact held is binding on the client , but if it is on a question of law it is not binding ( order 12 rule 6 CPC 1908 )
[12/17, 11:07] Vinothpandian: 2011 (3) SCC 545 : Parimal vs veena @ bharti : Held substituted service is meant to be resorted to serve notice at address known to parties where party had been residing last ( order 5 rule 20 CPC 1908 )
[12/18, 09:38] Vinothpandian: AIR 1984 SC 1233 : Punjab singh vs state of haryana : In a criminal trial proceedings , when there is inconsistency between medical evidence and direct testimony , if the direct evidence is satisfactory , the same cannot be rejected on hypothetical medical evidence
[12/18, 09:38] Vinothpandian: 1985 (4) SCC 80 : Pattipati venkaiah vs state of Andhra pradesh : medical science is not yet so perfect so to determine the exact time of death , nor can be the same be determined in a computerised or mathematical fashion so as to accurate to the last second
[12/18, 10:29] Vinothpandian: 2013 (2) DRTC 114 : Nippo foods vs state of punjab & others : In a suit for recovery of bank dues , liability of guarantor dependent upon liability of borrower , principal borrower cannot be permitted to say that amount should be recovered from guarantor and not from principal borrower
[12/18, 11:01] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) DRTC 836 : Hdfc bank ltd vs prestige educational trust : section 13(4) of SARFASI act not conferred any power on secured creditor to take possession of any assets other than secured assets
[12/20, 09:46] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) DRTC 302 : Bank of baroda vs sarvottam namkin pvt ltd & others : In DRT recovery suits though court has discretion to award interest other than contractual rate of interest , it should be supported with reasons ( sec 20 RDDBFI act 1993 )
[12/20, 09:46] Vinothpandian: 2016 (2) DRTC 128 : state bank of india vs veetee fine foods ltd : In a proceeding before DRT , castigating of bank officials and passing disparaging remarks need to be avoided , principles of public accountability made applicable with all its vigour , any use of disparaging remarks acts contrary to rule of natural justice
[12/20, 14:28] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC 420 : Midex global pvt ltd vs state bank of india : Regarding default of bank loans , inclusion of name of borrower in list of wilful defaulter decision on classification of wilful defaulter should be well documented and supported by requisite evidence , decision should clearly spell out reason for which borrower was declared as wilful defaulter
[12/20, 14:41] Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) DRTC 351 : Gulshan Rai jain & others vs DRAT Allahabad ; DRT / DRAT cannot keep appeal pending for indefinite period under garb of interim orders , non – disposal of appeal within statutory period shall frustrate very object of statute ( SARFASI act )
[12/21, 15:10] Vinothpandian: 2006 (3) SCC ( cri ) 30 : MS narayana menon @ mani vs state of kerala : If a cheque is issued for security or for any purpose other than a discharge of a debt or liability , penal provisions of sec 138 , negotiable instruments act not attracted
[12/21, 15:23] Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) scale 698 : Bir singh vs mukesh kumar : Even a blank cheque leaf voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused towards some payment would attract presumption under section 139 of NI act in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt
[12/21, 15:23] Vinothpandian: AIR 2010 SC 2835 : central bank of india vs Asian global ltd : merely being a director of a company would not make a person liable for an offence under sec 138 NI act that may have been committed by company
[12/21, 15:37] Vinothpandian: 2013 (5) SCC 741 : Natasha singh vs CBI : An application filed under sec 311 of CRPC must be allowed if fresh evidence is being produced to facilitate a just decision
[12/22, 15:48] Vinothpandian: 2013 CRI LJ 2973 : Prem kaur vs state of punjab : In a judgement absence of sound reasons is not a mere irregularity but a patent illegality
[12/22, 15:48] Vinothpandian: 2015(1) SCC 788 : PS meherhomji vs KT vijay kumar : judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment
[12/22, 15:48] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) SCC 476 : Union of india vs Ramesh gandhi : If a judgement is obtained by playing fraud on court is considered to be nullity in the eye of law
[12/22, 15:48] Vinothpandian: 2008 (1) SCC 683 : divisional manager , Aravali golf club vs chander hass : If there is law judges can certainly enforce it but judges cannot create law and seek to enforce it
[12/23, 14:05] Vinothpandian: 2013 (6) SCC 595 : Kashmiri lal vs state of haryana : If testimony of police officer is found to be reliable and trustworthy , court can definitely act upon the same
[12/23, 14:05] Vinothpandian: 2018 (2) crimes 225 : Asian resurfacing of road agency pvt ltd : order framing charges is not purely an interlocutory order nor a final order
[12/23, 14:10] Vinothpandian: 2012 (4) SCC 307 : kanwar singh saini vs high court of delhi : Executing court does not have power to go beyond the decree , no objection can be raised in execution in absence of any challenge to decree
[12/23, 14:10] Vinothpandian: 2012 (6) SCC 369 : chandra kr chopra vs UOI : mere suspicion or apprehension is not good enough to entertain a plea of bias
[12/24, 11:51] Vinothpandian: 2013 CRILJ 3140 : sujit biswas vs state of Assam : circumstances which are not put to accused in his examination under sec 313 of CRPC cannot be used against him and must be excluded from consideration
[12/24, 11:51] 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
[12/24, 11:56] Vinothpandian: AIR 2018 SC 4647 : Achpal @ Ramswaroop vs state of Rajasthan : With regard to extension of period for completing investigation , no court could either directly or indirectly extend such period , mere recording of submission of public prosecutor could not be taken to be an order granting extension
[12/24, 12:00] Vinothpandian: 2015 (1) SCC 788 : PS meherhomji vs KT vijay kumar : judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment
[12/27, 10:14] Vinothpandian: 2006 (2) SCC 578 : seema ( smt ) vs Ashwani kumar ; All marriages are required to be compulsorily registered
[12/27, 10:14] Vinothpandian: AIR 2018 SC 5128 : kamala vs MR mohan kumar : unlike matrimonial proceedings where strict proof of marriage is essential , in the proceedings under section 125 of CRPC , such strict standard of proof is not necessary as it is summary in nature meant to prevent vagrancy
[12/27, 10:21] Vinothpandian: 2018 (7) SCC 192 : shakthi vahini vs union of india : Right to choose life partner is a fundamental right , consent of family or community or clan is not necessary once two adult indivduals agree to enter into a wedlock
[12/27, 10:21] Vinothpandian: 2010 (7) SCC 667 : preeti gupta vs state of jharkhand : courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with complaints under section 498 A of IPC and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases
[12/29, 11:08] Vinothpandian: 2005 (2) crimes 230 : Rajendra sail vs madhya pradesh high court bar association : Judgements of courts are public documents and can be commented upon , analyzed and criticized , but it has to be in dignified manner without attributing motives
[12/29, 11:08] Vinothpandian: 2013 (14) SCC 127 : Arun kumar yadav vs state of UP through dist judge : sanctity of law which is sustained through dignity of courts cannot be marred by errant behaviour by any counsel or litigant , even a judge is required to maintain decorum and dignity of court
[12/29, 11:20] Vinothpandian: 2018 (1) crimes 95 : latesh @ dadu baburao karlekar vs state of maharastra : merely because names of accused are not stated and their names are not specified in the FIR cannot be ground to doubt contents of FIR , case of prosecution cannot be thrown out on this count
[12/29, 11:20] Vinothpandian: 1974 (1) SCC 345 : Pooran mal vs director of inspection ( investigation ) : evidence obtained on an illegal search cannot be excluded

You may also like...