Vinothpandian: 2016 (3) CTC 241 : mukanchand bothra S vs vairamuthu ramaswamy ( DB ) : contempt petition filed at behest of private indivdual without consent of advocate general is not maintainable ( section 2(c) of contempt of courts act 1971 ) [8/3, 11:10] Vinothpandian: 2017 (6) CTC

[8/3, 11:10] Vinothpandian: 2016 (3) CTC 241 : mukanchand bothra S vs vairamuthu ramaswamy ( DB ) : contempt petition filed at behest of private indivdual without consent of advocate general is not maintainable ( section 2(c) of contempt of courts act 1971 )
[8/3, 11:10] Vinothpandian: 2017 (6) CTC 187 : vijay singh vs shanti devi SC : once ex parte decree is set aside , parties would be relegated to position at which they were when ex parte decree was passed ( order 9 rule 13 CPC 1908 )
[8/3, 12:57] Vinothpandian: 2010 (11) SCC 520 : Harinarayan G Bajaj vs state of maharastra ; under section 244 of CRPC the accused has a right to cross examine the witnesses and in the matter of section 319 of CRPC when a new accused is summoned , he would have similar right to cross examine the witness examined during the enquiry afresh
[8/3, 12:57] 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
[8/3, 12:57] Vinothpandian: 2007 (9) SCC 721 : Appasaheb vs state of maharastra : mere demand made by the husband to his wife to seek Rs 1000 from her parents to meet domestic expenses would not by any stretch of imagination amount to demand of dowry
[8/3, 12:57] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) crimes 80 : mangat Ram vs state of haryana : failure of a married person to take his wife along with him to the place where he is working or posted would not amount to cruelty leading to abetement of committing suicide by wife
[8/3, 12:57] Vinothpandian: 2004 (8) SCC 774 : V Raja kumari vs P subbarama naidu : In a complaint under section 138 of NI act non – service of notice is not a ground for rejecting complaint even before it is numbered
[8/4, 10:55] Vinothpandian: 1989 (1) SCC 405 : Kuldip kaur vs surinder singh : In a criminal proceedings after awarding sentence and compensation , default sentence is a mode of enforcing recovery of amount imposed by way of compensation
[8/4, 10:55] Vinothpandian: 2014 (4) SCC 149.: state of Rajasthan vs shambhu kewat : crime against a society cannot be wiped of due to a compromise
[8/4, 14:36] Vinothpandian: 2008 (5) SCC 662 ; SK Alagh vs state of UP : Indian penal code does not contemplate any vicarious liability on a party not directly charged for commission of an offence except specifically provided there for
[8/4, 14:36] Vinothpandian: 2004 (5) SCC 729 : Inspector of police vs NMT joy immaculate : Admissibility of evidence or a piece of evidence has to be judged having regard to the provisions of evidence act
[8/4, 14:36] Vinothpandian: 2001 (4) SCC 667 : state of UP vs shambu nath singh : criminal justice cannot be allowed to be defeated solely on account of inaction or lapses of the court in adhering to the mandates of law
[8/5, 15:58] Vinothpandian: AIR 1991 SC 583 : Priyanka overseas p tld vs union of india : A party cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong
[8/5, 15:58] Vinothpandian: 1985 (2) SCC 35 : Rasikal vaghajibhai patel vs Ahmedabad municipal corporation : Person seeking relief under art 136 of the constitution.must come before court with clean hands
[8/5, 15:58] Vinothpandian: 2006 (6) SCC 94 : standard chartered bank vs Andhra bank financial services ltd : Held in a proceedings when both parties bonafides are in doubt , principles of equity is not applicable
[8/5, 16:04] Vinothpandian: 1984 (4) SCC 316 : chandra bansi singh vs state of bihar : supreme court cannot deny a relief to a party if he is entitled to it on equitable considerations though not under law , supreme court is not only a court of law but also a court of equity
[8/6, 12:33] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) CPJ 338 : Krishnan lal kalra vs Religare securities ltd : Regular trading in sale and purchase of shares is purely commercial activity and only motive is to earn profits , hence in the above matter consumer forum cannot consider complainant as a consumer
[8/6, 12:33] Vinothpandian: 2015 (3) CPR 160 : shankar biva pawar vs maharastra electricity supply co ltd : consumer forum have no jurisdiction to entertain a case pertaining to unauthorised use of electricity connection
[8/6, 12:33] Vinothpandian: 2016 (4) CPJ 28 : pooja pincha & another vs state bank of india : mortgage deed lost by bank , entire loan amount refunded , while original document is not available , loss of document of ownership is not a venial and trivial matter ,directed all cost of mortgage be borne by bank as well as cost imposed by the consumer forum
[8/6, 12:38] Vinothpandian: 2016 (2) CPR 151 : Dr srikar reddy & others vs srishti associates : consumer forum has held that a medical practioner would be liable only when his conduct fell below that of standards of a reasonably competent practioner in his field
[8/6, 12:44] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) CPR 36 : smt sujata vohra vs ISI escorts & others : consumer forum had held hospitals to be careful while issuing any document , correctness should be checked either by medical superintendent or by resident medical officer
[8/7, 10:17] Vinothpandian: 2021 (2) CTC 274 : mahalakshmi.vs district collector , virudhunagar district : Pertaining to pregnancy of minor girl , held though safety.and health of victim / minor is paramount , interest of unborn child to be considered , unborn child also a person , court must consider on facts if termination of pregnancy would be in best interest of unborn child
[8/7, 10:17] Vinothpandian: 2021 (2) CTC 497 : master ganesh R vs state of tamil nadu : Regarding challenging the validity of a judicial exam , powers of judicial review under art 226 limited
[8/7, 10:17] Vinothpandian: 2021 (1) CTC 389 : Director ( HR ) oil & natural gas corp ltd new delhi vs B uma : promotion or back wages for an employee cannot be denied when employee not terminated from service due to misconduct
[8/7, 10:24] Vinothpandian: 2021 (1) CTC 577 : Enkay visions p ltd vs doordarshan rep by its director general : Awarding interest in a money suit from the date of decree restricts the fruits of decree and defeats the interest of justice ( section 34 CPC 1908 )