Vinothpandian: 2011 (10) SCC 608 : Royal orchid hoteld ltd vs G jayarama reddy : If any land is acquired for public purpose by state government , such acquired land

[2/1, 14:02] Vinothpandian: 2011 (10) SCC 608 : Royal orchid hoteld ltd vs G jayarama reddy : If any land is acquired for public purpose by state government , such acquired land could not be transferred to any private individual and corporation
[2/1, 14:02] Vinothpandian: AIR 1953 SC 225 : Hira lal vs Badkulal : Acknowledgement made in statement of accounts based on mutual dealings held sufficient to furnish a cause of account for maintaining a suit
[2/1, 14:08] Vinothpandian: AIR 2001 SC 279 : Ratan singh vs vijay singh : where execution of decree was sought beyond period of 12 years after it becomes enforceable , it was held barred by limitation ( art 136 limitation act )
[2/2, 16:08] Vinothpandian: AIR 2009 SC 636 : komalam Amma vs kumara pillai Raghavan pillai : Right to residence is a part and parcel of wifes right to maintainence
[2/2, 16:08] Vinothpandian: 2008 (2) SCC 660 : state of punjab vs jalour singh : lok Adalats should resist their temptation to play the part of judges and constantly strive to function as conciliators
[2/2, 16:14] Vinothpandian: 2008 (4) SCC 774 : chand patel vs bismillah begum : sec 125 CRPC applies to all persons belonging to all religions and has no relationship to personal law of the parties
[2/2, 16:14] Vinothpandian: 2006 CRILJ 1622 : Ramesh kumari vs state : Genuniness or credibility of information not a condition precedent for registration of a case , that can only be considered after registration of a case
[2/3, 11:01] Vinothpandian: 2011 (4) All india criminal LR ( SC ) 508 : R vijayan vs baby : Proceedings under section 138 of the act cannot be treated as civil suits for recovery of the cheque amount with interest
[2/3, 11:01] Vinothpandian: 2012 CRI LJ 3068 : munna kumar upadhyaya vs state of AP : If the accused gave incorrect or false answers during the course of his statement under section 313 CRPC , the court can draw an adverse inference against him
[2/3, 11:15] Vinothpandian: 2013 (4) All india criminal LR ( DB ) : IN Re ketabul Sk : mere failure to disclose pendency of a bail application before a superior court is not a relevant ground for cancellation of bail
[2/4, 16:30] Vinothpandian: 2010(2) crimes 740 : state of HP vs dr Ravinder datyal ; Held for fixing criminal liability of a doctor or surgeon , the standard of negligence required to be proved should be so high as can be described as gross negligence or recklessness
[2/4, 16:38] Vinothpandian: 2013 (3) All india criminal LR : Demand for money on account of financial stringency or for meeting urgent domestic expenses does not amount to demand for dowry2013 (3) All india criminal LR : Demand for money on account of financial stringency or for meeting urgent domestic expenses does not amount to demand for dowry Shanta vs state of karnataka
[2/4, 16:57] Vinothpandian: 2013 (4) All india criminal LR ( SC ) 481 : sumit mehta vs state of NCT of delhi : A person should not be harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy the grudge or personal vendetta of the complainant , grant of bail under section 438 (1) of CRPC is dependent on the merits and circumstances of a case
[2/7, 15:18] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) DRTC 673 : K padma vs K Ramachandran & others : Debts recovery tribunal and debts recovery appellate tribunal , both considered to be civil court with regard to recovery proceedings
[2/7, 15:18] Vinothpandian: 2013 (1) DRTC 799 : Bharat minerals grinding industries vs state of jharkhand : secured creditor has to communicate within one week of receipt of such representation / objection from the borrower , reasons for non – acceptance of representation / objection to the borrower ( sec 13 SARFASI act )
[2/7, 15:18] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC 274 : deepthi trading co rep by its proprietor & others 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
[2/7, 15:37] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC SC 27 : mathew varghese vs Amritha kumari : section 13(8) engrafted in SARFASI act primarily enacted with a view to protect rights of a borrower
[2/7, 15:37] Vinothpandian: 2017 (2) DRTC 277 : Bhagwati printers pvt ltd vs IDBI bank ltd : An order rejecting or granting an application for condonation of delay in filing an application under sec 17 SARFASI act is an order under section 17 of the act , it would be appealable under section 18 of the act
[2/8, 10:15] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) DRTC 829 : moin leather wear exports & others vs oriental bank of commerce : while deciding on an application to set aside the exparte order , DRT under guise of setting aside ex parte order cannot recover amount in the form of passing conditional orders , without taking up the matter on merits
[2/8, 10:15] Vinothpandian: 2017 (2) DRTC 629 : panther fin cap & management services ltd vs bank of india : procedure for execution of decree taking recourse to provisions of CPC cannot be equated with proceedings for recovery under a certificate issued by debt recovery tribunal
[2/8, 10:50] Vinothpandian: 2013 (2) DRTC 114 : Nippo foods vs state of punjab : In a suit for recovery of bank dues , liability of guarantor dependent upon liability of borrower
[2/8, 10:50] Vinothpandian: 2016 (1) DRTC 425 : sudha sharma & another vs punjab national bank : provision of section 13 of SARFASI act not dependent on any other provision of law , complete code in itself to enforce security interest , neither sec 41 of TP act nor sec 125 of the companies act are applicable
[2/9, 10:22] Vinothpandian: Supreme court judgement : civil appeal no 901 of 2022 dated 3- 02 – 2022 New Okhla industrial development authority vs yunus : In a land acquisition proceedings award passed by lok Adalat cannot form basis for redetermination of compensation
[2/9, 10:22] 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 )
[2/9, 10:38] 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 )
[2/9, 10:38] Vinothpandian: 2019 (5) SCC 755 : Bharat broad band network ltd vs United telecoms ltd : when a person is approached in connection with his possible appointment as an arbitrator , it is his duty to disclose in writing any circumstances which are likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence or impartiality ( arbitration and conciliation act 1996 sec 34 )
[2/9, 10:38] 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
[2/10, 09:54] Vinothpandian: 2011 (4) SCC 363 : lanka venkateswarlu vs state of Andhra pradesh : If any application under section 5 of the limitation act is filed for condonation of delay on basis of enough reasons , concerned court often has liberal approach in respect there of
[2/10, 09:54] Vinothpandian: 2010 (12) scale 209 : Indian oil corporation ltd vs subrata borah chowlek : A party even upon showing a sufficient cause for delay is not entitled to condonation of delay as a matter of right
[2/10, 09:59] Vinothpandian: 2011 (10) SCC 608 : Royal orchid hotels ltd vs G jayarama reddy : If any land is acquired for public purpose by state government , such acquired land could not be transferred to any private indivdual and corporation
[2/10, 10:24] Vinothpandian: 2012 (4) SCC 307 : kanwar singh saini vs high court of delhi : for violation of a judgement or decree , provisions of criminal contempt not attracted
[2/10, 10:24] Vinothpandian: 2018 (3) crimes 491 : mohammed zakir vs shabana : High court should not exercise power under section 362 CRPC for a correction on merits
[2/11, 11:00] Vinothpandian: Supreme court judgement : somabhai Ajmeri vs Aksharay developers & others civil appeal no 785 of 2022 dated 31-01-22 : section 69 (2) of partnership act cannot bar enforcement by way of suit by unregistered firm in respect of statutory right or common law right
[2/11, 11:00] Vinothpandian: Supreme court judgement : Bank of baroda & another vs MBL infrastructures ltd and others civil appeal no 8411 of 2019 dated 18- 01-2022 : IN an insolvency proceedings , resolution plan submitted by guarantor cannot be entertained
[2/11, 11:00] Vinothpandian: Supreme court judgement : mohammed masroor sheik vs bharat bhusan gupta civil appeal no 874 of 2022 dated 2- 02 – 2022 : while dealing with petition under section 11 of the arbitration and conciliation act , court by default would refer matter when contentions relating to non arbitrability are plainly arguable
[2/12, 10:41] Vinothpandian: 2007 (6) SCC 528 : dilip S dahanukar vs kotak mahindra company ltd : with regard to suspension of sentence in a criminal proceedings , not only amount of compensation must be reasonable , but condition of suspending sentence should also be reasonable
[2/12, 10:41] Vinothpandian: 2015 (11) SCC 31 : Indra dalal vs state of haryana : when a person is in police custody , the confession made by him even to a third person , that is other than a police officer shall also become inadmissible
[2/12, 10:55] Vinothpandian: 1979 (4) SCC 725 : suraj mal vs state ( delhi administration ) In a corruption case , mere recovery of tainted money , divorced from circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict accused when substantive evidence in case is not reliable
[2/12, 11:01] Vinothpandian: 2008 CRILJ 377 : sarav investment & FCPL vs Llyods register of shipping IOS PF : In a dishonour of cheque case , service of notice is a part of cause of action for lodging complaint
[2/12, 11:25] Vinothpandian: 2001 (2) crimes 32 : state of JK vs Abdul Ahad sheik. : In a proceedings under sec 482 CRPC , high court cannot exceed jurisdiction by trying to analyse evidence and examining defence plea
[2/14, 11:29] Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) SCC 34 : kailash gour vs state of Assam : An accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved to be guilty
[2/14, 11:36] Vinothpandian: AIR 1983 SC 454 : Bhagat Ram vs state of himachal pradesh : If penalty imposed is disproportionate to gravity of misconduct , it would be violative of art 14 of the constitution
[2/14, 11:36] Vinothpandian: 1996 (9) SCC 74 : secretary , Hailakandi bar association vs state of Assam : In a criminal contempt proceedings , belated apology may not be accepted presuming it may not be given in good faith
[2/14, 11:50] Vinothpandian: 2011 (2) SCC 772 : TGN kumar vs state of kerala : In a proceedings regarding exemption from personal appearance of the accused , order of magistrate should be such which does not result in unnecessary harassment to accused and at the same time does not cause any prejudice to complainant
[2/15, 10:03] Vinothpandian: 1999 (3) SCC 54 : vijayan @Rajan vs state of kerala : To punish a person for criminal conspiracy under sec 120 – B of IPC , it is necessary to establish that there was an agreement between parties for doing an unlawful act
[2/15, 10:03] Vinothpandian: 2011 (5) SCC 708 : sushil suri vs CBI : In a cheating case initiated by the bank , a person cannot be exonerated from criminal liabilty merely because dues of bank have been paid up
[2/15, 10:06] Vinothpandian: 2009 (3) crimes 248 : Dalip kaur vs jagnar singh : Breach of contract of an agreement for sale would not constitute an offence under sec 406 or 420 IPC
[2/15, 10:30] Vinothpandian: 2008 (1) crimes 165 ; suryalakshmi cotton mills ltd vs Rajvir industries ltd : commercial expediencies may lead a person to issue blank cheques and filling up of blanks in a cheque itself would not amount to forgery or cheating
[2/15, 10:37] Vinothpandian: 2015 (1) DRTC 197 : Allahabad bank vs shivganga tube well & others : with regard to suit for enforcement of money secured by mortgage , period of limitation would be 12 years from date when money becomes due
[2/16, 11:21] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) DRTC 464 SC : mainuddin Abdul sattar shaik vs vijay D salvi : In a cheque dishonour case , a person who draws a cheque on an account maintained by him for paying the payee alone attracts liability
[2/16, 11:22] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) DRTC 464 SC : mainuddin Abdul sattar shaik vs vijay D salvi : In a cheque dishonour case , a person who draws a cheque on an account maintained by him for paying the payee alone attracts liability
[2/16, 11:32] Vinothpandian: 2016 (1) DRTC 476 : national laminate corporation , mumbai vs Euro merchandise pvt ltd : In a SARFASI litigation , merely because a borrower desires to approach higher court cannot be a ground to stay an order already passed as against him
[2/16, 11:42] Vinothpandian: 2001 (9) SCC 417 : sunil bajaj vs state of MP : In a dowry harassment case , conviction cannot be on the basis of vague and inconsistent and generic allegation
[2/16, 11:53] Vinothpandian: 2010 (3) SCC 83 : mandvi coop bank ltd vs nimesh b thakore : Right to give evidence on affidavit as provided to complainant under sec 145 (1) of NI act is not available to accused
[2/17, 15:50] Vinothpandian: 2011 (8) supreme 323 : Bangaru laxman vs state : It was held that while making interpretation of a provision giving birth to a legal fiction , court has to ensure that purpose in respect of which said fiction was created
[2/17, 15:50] Vinothpandian: AIR 1968 SC 870 : Ishwarlal vs state of gujarat : dictionaries and reports of foreign cases held not safe guides , safest guide is the statute itself
[2/17, 15:50] Vinothpandian: 1988 SCC (cri ) 104 : Tulsi Ram vs state of MP : It is no use turning to dictionaries , dictionaries give variegated meaning to words , dictionary meaning are variegated meaning depends on context
[2/17, 15:54] Vinothpandian: 2008 (7) SCC 454 : united india insurance co ltd vs Ajay sinha : Permanent lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to entertain disputes related to non – compoundable criminal offences
[2/21, 09:40] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) SCC 302 : leela hotels ltd vs housing & urban development corporation ltd ; Held language used in section 36 of the arbitration and coincilation act makes it very clear that arbitration award should be enforced under CPC in same manner as it were a decree of court
[2/21, 09:40] Vinothpandian: 2012 (9) SCC 552 : Bharat aluminium co vs kaiser aluminium technical service : Held section 36 of the arbitration and coincilation act necessarily refers to enforcement of domestic awards only
[2/21, 14:04] Vinothpandian: 2012 (5) SCC 488 : super cassettes industries ltd vs music broadcast pvt ltd : Held in matters under order 39 rules 1 & 2 and sec 151 CPC 1908 , an interim relief granting final relief should be given after exercise of great caution and in rare and exceptional cases
[2/21, 14:04] Vinothpandian: 2015 (11) SCC 782 : Lisamma Antony & another vs karthiyayani & another ; Held second appeal under sec 100 of CPC cannot be admitted unless there is substantial question of law involved in it
[2/23, 11:04] Vinothpandian: 2014 (11) SCC 639 : world sport group ( mauritius ) ltd vs MSM satellite ( singapore ) pvt ltd : Held meaning of principle of comity is that courts of one state or jurisdiction will give effect to law and judicial decisions of another state or jurisdiction , not as a matter of obligation but out of deference and mutual respect
[2/23, 11:04] Vinothpandian: 2014 (4) SCC 186 : SVA steel.Re- rolling mills ltd & others vs state of kerala : Held provisions of section 22 – B electricity act 1910 are not applicable where state had given an assurance with regard to uninterrupted supply of electricity to consumers
[2/23, 11:04] Vinothpandian: 2011 (4) SCC 240 : H siddiqui ( dead ) by LRS vs A Ramalingam : Held , it is a duty of court to decide question of admissibility of a document in secondary evidence before making endorsement thereon ( section 65 evidence act )
[2/23, 12:43] Vinothpandian: AIR 2011 SC 2057 : vimleshwar nagappa shet vs noor ahmad sheriff & others ; A concession made by a counsel on a question of fact held is binding on the client , but if it is on a questional of law it is not binding ( order 3 rule 1 & 2 CPC 1908 )
[2/24, 10:47] Vinothpandian: AIR 2014 SC 1155 : Rajinder kumar vs kuldeep singh : once decree for specific performance attained finality , held weak and lame contentions regarding executability of decree cannot be permitted to be raised , ( sec 20 specific relief act 1963 )