Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) MWN ( cri ) 626 : Dhurga vaishnavi shivamoorthi vs murthy : conduct of accused subsequent

[10/16, 17:32] Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) MWN ( cri ) 626 : Dhurga vaishnavi shivamoorthi vs murthy : conduct of accused subsequent to release on bail and supervening circumstances alone relevant for cancellation of bail ( sec 439 (2) CRPC 1973 )
[10/16, 17:32] Vinothpandian: 2019 (6) CTC 442 : Nissan motors corporate office vs S giri prasad : summoning of an accused in a criminal case a serious matter , summoning 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
[10/16, 17:32] Vinothpandian: 2019 (5) CTC 413 : omega enterprises Andheri mumbai vs ministry of civil aviation : Held scope of judicial interference in commercial contracts under art 226 is very limited
[10/18, 09:42] Vinothpandian: 2014 (3) SCC 1 : shatrughan chauhan vs union of india : Execution of death sentence must be in consonance with constitutional mandate and not in violation of constitutional principles
[10/18, 09:42] Vinothpandian: 2012 (4) SCC 257 : Ramnaresh vs state of chattisgarh : Merely because a crime is heinous per se may not be a sufficient reason for imposition of death penalty without reference to other factors and attended circumstances
[10/18, 09:42] Vinothpandian: 2010 (1) SCC 775 : Dilip premnarayan tiwari vs state of maharastra : In a death sentence matter it is not only nature of crime but background of criminal , his psychology , his social conditions and mindset for committing offence is relevant
[10/18, 09:59] Vinothpandian: 2008 (2) SCC 561 : onkar nath mishra vs state ( NCT of delhi ) : Provisions of sec 498 A IPC should not be used as a device to achieve oblique motive
[10/20, 12:02] Vinothpandian: 2017 (2) DRTC 309 : Lakshya concosts pvt ltd vs bank of baroda : chief metropolitan magistrate or district magistrate only empowered to assist secured creditor in taking over possession of secured asset ( sec 14 SARFASI act )
[10/20, 12:02] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC 140 : state bank of patiala vs shiv shanker rice mills & others : Approach to writ court regarding SARFASI matters without exhausting effective alternative remedy available must lead to dismissal of writ petition
[10/20, 13:52] Vinothpandian: 2010 (11) SCC 203 : central bank of india vs Asian global ltd : In a cheque dishonour case , merely being a director would not make a person liable for an offence that may have been committed by company
[10/21, 09:58] Vinothpandian: 1972 (3) SCC 393 : Thulia kali vs state of tamil nadu : FIR is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for purpose corroborating oral evidence adduced at the trial
[10/21, 09:58] Vinothpandian: 2012 (6) SCC 204 : Jitender kumar vs state of haryana : Every omission in FIR may not be so material so as to unexceptionally be fatal to case of prosecution
[10/21, 09:58] Vinothpandian: AIR 1960 SC 866 : RP kapoor vs state of punjab : court would be reluctant to interfere with criminal proceedings at an interlocutory stage
[10/21, 11:35] Vinothpandian: 2009 (11) SCC 545 : seth Ramdayal jat vs laxmi prasad : Judgement of criminal court not admissible in a civil suit
[10/22, 13:24] 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
[10/22, 13:24] Vinothpandian: 2008 (9) SCC 392 : state of himachal pradesh vs sardara singh : In a judgement , right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system , reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court
[10/22, 13:24] Vinothpandian: 2014 (12) SCC 198 : daljit singh gujral vs jagjit singh arora : High court cannot correct an issue which has been framed and answered
[10/22, 13:30] 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 a law and seek to enforce it
[10/22, 13:30] Vinothpandian: 2015 (1) SCC 788 : PS meherhomji vs KT vijay kumar ; judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment
[10/22, 13:34] Vinothpandian: 2006 (3) SCC 276 : state of UP vs sheo shanker lal srivastava : judicial review may require full blown merit judgement
[10/23, 09:50] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) CTC 673 : muthukrishnan R vs union of india : when an advocate is appearing as party in person , he is bound to maintain norms and decorum of legal profession
[10/23, 09:50] Vinothpandian: 2014 (1) CTC 204 : vijay anand RD vs secretary bar council of tamil nadu : Power to grant license and revocation would include power to order interim suspension of legal practioner pending disciplinary proceedings ( Advocates act 1961 sec 6 )
[10/23, 09:50] Vinothpandian: 2014 (4) CTC 27 : veerapan D vs inspector of police namakkal district : for invoking writ of mandamus petitioners must possess legal right and respondents must have legal duty
[10/23, 09:59] Vinothpandian: 2014 (1) CTC 726 : sathu dharmananda saraswathi swamigal trust vs sree shanmugha seva sangam.nattar trust : CPC 1908 order 17 held no law says that once memo is filed stating petition of transfer is filed matter to be adjourned
[10/23, 09:59] Vinothpandian: 2014 (5) CTC 764 : Sillicon valley auto components pvt ltd vs Indian bank : Disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
Call Now ButtonCALL ME