![[5/10, 11:32] Ap Rajagopal Mhc: *Right To Default Bail Under Section 167(2) CrPC Not Affected By SC Order Extending Limitation : Madras HC* [5/10, 11:40] Sekarreporter: 🙏🏽](https://sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)
Follow:
- Next story Musings At Law Epilogue-II Narasimhan Vijayaraghavan I can see it my mind’s eye, even at this distance, and relish the moment. The seniormost among them said, “Mi Lord is absolutely right. It was unbecoming of our counterparts, to endorse no objection in the IA for impleading. It is shameful conduct. All of us have agreed that the endorsements may be treated as recalled and IA heard on merits based on the counter filed by the bank”.
- Previous story Sc judge v Rama subramaniyam full specch in the link click here
Recent Posts
- The first bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy recently dismissed the petitions filed by the Employers’ Federation of Southern India and industrial houses including KCP Limited, Sundaram Clayton Limited and Rane Engine Valve Limited, saying that no vested interests of the petitioners were affected by the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015.
- Today 6 law tips / [20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: 2015 (6) SCC 287 : Priyanka srivastava vs state of UP : when a borrower of financial institution covered under the SARFASI act , invokes jurisdiction under sec 156 (3) CRPC and also there is a separate procedure under Recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act , an attitude of more care , caution and circumspection has to be adhered to[20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: Supreme court judgement: SLP ( civil ) No 9496 of 2020 dated 4- 02 – 2022 Ajanta LLP vs casino keisanki kabushiki computer ltd : consent decree cannot be modified / altered unless the mistake is patent or obvious mistake ( order 23 rule 3 CPC 1908 )[20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: 2019 (3) SCC 39 ; Joseph shine vs union.of india : A bench disagreeing with decision.of a larger or coequal bench can only refer the matter to a larger bench , it cannot disagree or dissent[20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: Supreme court: civil.appeal no 363 of 2022 dated 10- 02 – 2022 Bank of baroda vs M / S karwa trading company and another : In a SARFASI proceedings , unless and until borrower ready to deposit / pay entire amount payable together with all costs and expenses with secured creditor , borrower cannot be discharged from entire liability outstanding[20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: 2021 (1) CTC 830 : saradhammal vs sankaralingam : Held transfer of immovable property under attachment with knowledge of attachment vitiates transfer ( sec 52 transfer of property act 1882 )[20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: 2011 (7) SCC 69 : Amar singh vs union of india : Held litigants must observe total clarity and candour in their pleadings especially when it contains a prayer for injunction ( order 39 rule 1 & 2 CPC 1908 )
- [20/04, 11:34] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1781564360177209576?t=ijXt2lW-UwiEB44RJHBZCg&s=08[20/04, 11:34] sekarreporter1: K Parasaran book Launch function vadapalani chennai today evening 5.30 thanjai sastra college chennai campus
- Juniors of Senior Govindaswinathan award function[20/04, 11:15] sekarreporter1: Juniors of late Senior adv Govindaswinathan award function held Sunday naradaganasaba 10.30 morning
- PLAINT LIFELINE OF LITIGATION
More
Recent Posts
- The first bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy recently dismissed the petitions filed by the Employers’ Federation of Southern India and industrial houses including KCP Limited, Sundaram Clayton Limited and Rane Engine Valve Limited, saying that no vested interests of the petitioners were affected by the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015.
- Today 6 law tips / [20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: 2015 (6) SCC 287 : Priyanka srivastava vs state of UP : when a borrower of financial institution covered under the SARFASI act , invokes jurisdiction under sec 156 (3) CRPC and also there is a separate procedure under Recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act , an attitude of more care , caution and circumspection has to be adhered to[20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: Supreme court judgement: SLP ( civil ) No 9496 of 2020 dated 4- 02 – 2022 Ajanta LLP vs casino keisanki kabushiki computer ltd : consent decree cannot be modified / altered unless the mistake is patent or obvious mistake ( order 23 rule 3 CPC 1908 )[20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: 2019 (3) SCC 39 ; Joseph shine vs union.of india : A bench disagreeing with decision.of a larger or coequal bench can only refer the matter to a larger bench , it cannot disagree or dissent[20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: Supreme court: civil.appeal no 363 of 2022 dated 10- 02 – 2022 Bank of baroda vs M / S karwa trading company and another : In a SARFASI proceedings , unless and until borrower ready to deposit / pay entire amount payable together with all costs and expenses with secured creditor , borrower cannot be discharged from entire liability outstanding[20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: 2021 (1) CTC 830 : saradhammal vs sankaralingam : Held transfer of immovable property under attachment with knowledge of attachment vitiates transfer ( sec 52 transfer of property act 1882 )[20/04, 11:16] Vinothpandian: 2011 (7) SCC 69 : Amar singh vs union of india : Held litigants must observe total clarity and candour in their pleadings especially when it contains a prayer for injunction ( order 39 rule 1 & 2 CPC 1908 )
- [20/04, 11:34] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1781564360177209576?t=ijXt2lW-UwiEB44RJHBZCg&s=08[20/04, 11:34] sekarreporter1: K Parasaran book Launch function vadapalani chennai today evening 5.30 thanjai sastra college chennai campus
- Juniors of Senior Govindaswinathan award function[20/04, 11:15] sekarreporter1: Juniors of late Senior adv Govindaswinathan award function held Sunday naradaganasaba 10.30 morning
- PLAINT LIFELINE OF LITIGATION