Vinothpandian: 2021 (2) CTC 261 : bharat petroleum corporation ltd vs P umapathy : order 2 rule 2CPC 1908 intended to prevent multiplicity of proceedings , not throw out genuine litigant at threshold

Sekarreporter[11/14, 07:28] Vinothpandian: 2021 (2) CTC 261 : bharat petroleum corporation ltd vs P umapathy : order 2 rule 2CPC 1908 intended to prevent multiplicity of proceedings , not throw out genuine litigant at threshold
[11/14, 07:28] Vinothpandian: 2021 (2) CTC 526 : sivanadiyan vs sub registrar pudukottai : under the registration act there is no specific provision for registering authority to insist on production of original document
[11/14, 07:28] Vinothpandian: 2021 (2) CTC 600 : kotak mahindra bank pvt ltd vs Ambuj A kasliwal SC : ordinarily deposit of 50% of decretal amount due mandatory under sec 21 of RDDBFI act , but in appropriate cases for reasons to be recorded deposit of at least 25% permissible
[11/14, 07:28] Vinothpandian: 2021 (1) CTC 504 : Rajkumaran VR vs BS lavanya ( DB ) : mere long separation is not a ground to snap matrimonial tie , held husband not entitled for divorce on that ground ( hindu marriage act 1955 section 13(1)(1-a))
[11/14, 07:28] Vinothpandian: 2020 (4) CTC 497 : Ravindranath GE medical associates pvt ltd chennai vs P Raja rao : while granting interim injunction or continuing existing injunction , court must see if there is bonafide contest between parties , court must also find which side balance of convenience lies ( order 39 CPC 1908 )
[11/15, 19:00] Vinothpandian: 2021 (2) CTC 200 : Krishna murthy VN vs Ravikumar SC : A person not a party to proceedings but prejudicially affected by a judgement / decree can file an appeal with leave of appellate court ( sec 96 CPC 1908 )
[11/15, 19:00] Vinothpandian: 2021 (2) CTC 431 : lakshminaranyan v vs family manager suriyanarayanan : Held explicit permission to admit secondary evidence not mandatory , admitting secondary evidence in absence of objection at time or marking sustainable ( order 13 rule 4 CPC 1908 )
[11/15, 19:00] Vinothpandian: 2017 (1) CCC 280 : Icon build con pvt ltd vs Agarwal developers pvt ltd : judgement of a criminal court cannot be binding on a civil court
[11/15, 19:00] Vinothpandian: 2013 (5) MLJ 593 : commissioner of police new delhi vs mehar singh : dismissal of SLP in limine does not mean approval of the impugned judgement
[11/15, 19:00] Vinothpandian: 2015 (4) MLJ 340 : Bharti airtel ltd & others vs union of india : Adjudication without concrete facts and figures , only on some hypothetical basis neither permissible nor justified
[11/15, 19:00] Vinothpandian: 2015 (8) MLJ 613 : M/ S shree bhagwati steel rolling mills vs commissioner of central excise : judgement in public good , view taken being a reasonably possible view , all aspects of question at hand noticed , such judgement does not need relook
[11/15, 19:00] Vinothpandian: 2016 (7) MLJ 419 : kedar nath yadav vs state of west bengal : Rule of law cannot be sacrificed for furthering political agenda , change of stand permissible if earlier action illegal or suffering from legal malafides or colourable exercise of power
[11/15, 19:00] Vinothpandian: 2014 (3) CCC 176 : Om narayan bohre and others vs Rajendra prasad bohre : A party that desires to produce additional evidence before appellate court has to satisfy that it could not get evidence with due diligence during pendency of suit before trial court ( CPC 1908 order 41 rule 27 )
[11/16, 14:47] Vinothpandian: Supreme court : civil appeal no 8972 – 8973 of 2014 dated 10 – 11 – 22 Bank of Rajasthan ltd vs VCk shares & stock broking services ltd : civil court can try suit filed by borrower against bank but has no power to transfer it to debt recovery tribunal
[11/16, 14:47] Vinothpandian: Supreme court : SLP ( crl ) no 8768 of 2022 dated 31 – 10 -2022 kiran tomar & others vs state of Uttar pradesh ; In a proceedings under sec 125 CRPC ( maintenance ) income tax returns do not necessarily furnish accurate guide of real income when parties are engaged in matrimonial conflict
[11/16, 14:49] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) DRTC 457 : Bankey lal gupta & another vs bank of baroda : mere financial hardship cannot be a ground for asking tribunal to excessive waiver ( sec 21 RDDBFI act 1993 )
[11/16, 14:49] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) DRTC 748 : S Anandan & others vs state bank of india : loan contracted for poultry purposes , bank cannot charge interest at compound rate from date of suit , since it is borrowed for agricultural industrial purpose only ( sec 34 RDDBFI act 1993 )
[11/16, 14:49] Vinothpandian: 2005 (6) SCC 109 : Rajendra sail vs madhya pradesh high court bar association : Judgements of courts are public documents and can be commented upon , analysed and criticized but it has to be in dignified manner without attributing motives
[11/17, 15:08] Vinothpandian: 2017 (1) CTC 185 : N jothi vs S Radha : Post trial amendment cannot be granted casually ( order 6 rule 17 CPC 1908 )
[11/17, 15:15] Vinothpandian: 2014 (4) CTC 593 : sudalaimani vs state rep by inspector of police , chrompet , police staion : Any confession made to police officer after commencement of investigation cannot be used in favour of accused as same barred under section 162 CRPC
[11/17, 15:36] Vinothpandian: 2013 (1) CTC 353 : The authorised officer , indian bank vs Tetrahedron ltd : Held bank not authorised to transfer property to person who was not a party to auction proceedings
[11/17, 15:50] Vinothpandian: 2015 (1) CTC 526 ; The inspector general of registration vs Kk Thirumurugan : section 47 – A stamp act 1899 would not be applicable in respect of property purchased by way of public auction conducted under SARFASI act , registering authority cannot doubt value mentioned in sale certificate
[11/17, 16:06] Vinothpandian: 2015 (6) CTC 22 : SM Anantha murugan vs chairman bar council of India : persons who have been dismissed or removed from service or left services consequent to departmental / in house proceedings are not eligible for enrolment as advocate , law graduate who had already suffered conviction in any criminal case is disqualified for enrolment
[11/18, 10:08] Vinothpandian: AIR 1971 SC 1283 : deputy chief controller vs KT kosalaram : dictionary meaning not to be mechanically applied , the context in which the word is used of importance in determining the precise sense which fits in with the context as intended by the author
[11/18, 10:08] Vinothpandian: AIR 2011 SC 2990 : sheelkumar jain vs new india assurance co ltd : It was held that when court makes an interpretation of any statutory provisions , it would be necessary for concerned court to have in mind the purpose of said provisions