Vinothpandian: 2021 (1) CTC 180 : jesu ( died ) vs V virgin : Held requirement to file amended copy of plaint is for courts convenience , plaintiff cannot be non – suited for not filing amended copy ( order 6 rule

[1/18, 10:42] Vinothpandian: 2021 (1) CTC 180 : jesu ( died ) vs V virgin : Held requirement to file amended copy of plaint is for courts convenience , plaintiff cannot be non – suited for not filing amended copy ( order 6 rule 1 CPC 1908 )
[1/18, 10:42] Vinothpandian: 2021 (1) CTC 183 : Raja Rao p vs Ravindranath GE medical associates pvt ltd : counter affidavit with prayer to dismiss interlocutory application sufficient to decide relief sought in OA ( madras high court original side rules 1956 )
[1/18, 10:53] Vinothpandian: 2020 (6) CTC 198 ; Abhilasha vs parkash SC : Hindu father morally and legally liable to maintain his unmarried daughter , said principle is incorporated in section 20 ( 3) of hindu adoptions and maintenance act 1956
[1/18, 10:53] Vinothpandian: 2020 (6) CTC 582 ( DB ) : Tamil.nadu merchantile bank ltd chennai vs district magistrate : object of section 14 SARFASI.act is to assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured assets
[1/19, 11:12] Vinothpandian: 2016 (1) DRTC 425 : sudha sharma & another vs punjab national bank : provision of section 13 SARFASI.act not dependent on any other provision of law , complete code in itself to enforce security interest
[1/19, 11:12] Vinothpandian: 2013 (2) DRTC 114 : nippo foods vs state of punjab : Principal borrower cannot be permitted to say that amount should be recovered from guarantor and not from principal borrower ( section 13 SARFASI act )
[1/19, 11:12] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC 404 : Bobby sebastin & another vs AO ICICI bank : only an officer of bank , as specified by board of directors can issue a notice of demand under section 13 ( 2) of the SARFASI act as contemplated under rule 2 ( b) of the rules
[1/20, 15:40] Vinothpandian: 1989 (1) crimes 521 : Harekrishna satpathy and another vs maheshwar sahu and others : An assault by a public servant on a person can never be a part of official duty nor can it be said to be in discharge of his official duty and therefore sanction for prosecution under section.197 will not be necessary
[1/20, 15:40] Vinothpandian: 1980 SCC ( cri ) 444 : state of UP vs Ram babu mishra ; A magistrate has no power either under section 3 of evidence act or under section 5 of identification of prisoner act to direct the accused to give specimen writing during the investigation of the case for anticipated comparison
[1/20, 15:40] Vinothpandian: 2002 cri LJ 1674 : dr meeru bhatia prasad vs state : section 312 IPC can even apply to a pregnant woman herself who causes her own miscarriage , good faith by itself is not enough , it has to be good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the mother or the child and not otherwise
[1/20, 15:40] Vinothpandian: 1975 CRI LJ 1756 : pali Ram vs state : The court can direct any person to write words or figures to enable the court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Call Now ButtonCALL ME