Vinothpandian: 25 Law bits

[11/20, 10:22] Vinothpandian: 2000 (8) SCC 740 : Basavaraj R patil vs state of karnataka : provisions of sec 313 of CRPC are not meant to nail the accused to his disadvantage but are meant for his benefit
[11/20, 10:22] Vinothpandian: 1969 CRI LJ 654 : Bibhuti bhusan das gupta vs state of west bengal : pleader cannot represent accused for questioning of accused under sec 313 CRPC 1973
[11/20, 10:22] Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) crimes 193 : manju devi vs state of Rajasthan : Age of a case by itself cannot be decisive of the matter when a prayer is made for examination of a material witness
[11/22, 12:21] Vinothpandian: 1995 (3) SCC 252 : P udayani devi vs VV Rajeshwara prasad Rao : A sale certificate is an important document which confirms sale of a property and its proper execution , it confirms the title of owner therefore it cannot be taken in light sense
[11/22, 12:21] Vinothpandian: 2011 (11) SCC 578 : manjit singh vs CBI : when language of any statute is ambiguous , jurisdiction of the court can be invoked for purpose of interpreting said statute
[11/22, 12:21] Vinothpandian: AIR 1959 SC 1331 : Br india general insurance co vs capt Itbar singh : The court cannot add words to a section unless the section as it stands is meaningless or of doubtful.meaning
[11/22, 12:26] Vinothpandian: 2004 (1) SCC 119 : Apangshu mohan lodh vs state of tripura : Power to condone delay is discretionary and is to be liberally construed
[11/23, 10:10] Vinothpandian: 2014 (9) SCC 230 : sanjay kumar vs state of bihar : pleadings have to be true to the knowledge of parties and in case a person takes such misleading pleadings he can be refused not only any kind of indulgence by court but can also be tried for perjury
[11/23, 10:10] Vinothpandian: 2012 (6) SCC 369 : chandra kr chopra vs UOI : mere suspicion or apprehension is not good enough to entertain a plea of bias
[11/23, 12:22] Vinothpandian: 2013 (10) SCC 581 : vinod Raghuvanshi vs Ajay arora : when a prosecution at initial stage is to be quashed , the test to be applied by court is whether uncontroverted allegations as made , prima facie establish the offence
[11/23, 12:22] Vinothpandian: 2009(3) SCC 789 : Ashabai machindra Adhagale vs state of maharastra : Inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution
[11/24, 16:00] Vinothpandian: 2016 (4) SCC 160 : dharam pal vs state of haryana : With regard to investigation stage of case cannot be a governing factor
[11/24, 16:00] Vinothpandian: 2003 (6) SCC 195 : union of india vs prakash P Hinduja : Any illegality in an investigation does not vitiate the trial , unless it has caused a miscarriage of justice
[11/24, 16:00] Vinothpandian: 2015 (1) crimes 13 : sunita kachwaha vs Anil kachwaha : In a matrimonial proceeding , ” inability to maintain is a pre- condition for grant of maintenance to wife
[11/24, 16:00] Vinothpandian: 2005 (4) SCC 468 : shantha alias ushadevi vs BG shivananjappa : liability to pay maintenance under sec 125 CRPC is in the nature of a continuing liability
[11/25, 10:46] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) DRTC 460 : maa shakum bhari synthetic ltd vs canara bank : notice is to be served on each and every person involved in transaction ( SARFASI act 2002 sec 13 (2) )
[11/25, 10:46] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC 426 ; madhuri devi vs dena bank : once objection is filed by the borrower against notice issued under section 13 (2) of SARFASI act , bank is obliged to file reply to same as per sec 13 (3-A) SARFASI act
[11/25, 14:30] Vinothpandian: 2015 (1) DRTC 66 : shanti jaiswal & another vs state bank of india : Debt recovery tribunal or recovery officer cannot go behind decree / certificate / orders , recovery officer is bound to execute it ( sec 27 RDDBFI act 1993 )
[11/25, 15:10] Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) CTC 481 : Abdul kalam Azad AL vs AL jawaharlal rep by power agent : Award of lok adalat can be challenged only by filing writ petition under article 226 or 227 of constitution on very limited grounds
[11/26, 09:52] Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) DRTC 104 : mohinder pal singh vs state bank of india : In a SARFASI execution , bank engaging enforcement agency and claiming amount paid to such agency from borrower is untenable , bank cannot claim interest on expenses
[11/26, 09:52] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC 1 SC : Harshad govardhan sondagar vs IARC ltd and others : A lease of secured asset made by borrower after he receives notice under sec 13(2) of SARFASI act from secured creditor intending to enforce that secured asset will not be valid lease
[11/26, 09:52] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) DRTC 671 : mohan products pvt ltd vs state bank of india : With regard recovery proceedings initiated by bank , bank has right to publish name of defaulter , description of immovable property to be sold , amount of secured debt , reserve price , time and place of auction and earnest money
[11/26, 10:05] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC 274 : deepti trading co rep by its proprietor 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 ( sec 13 (2) & 13(4) SARFASI act )
[11/27, 10:46] Vinothpandian: 2000(5) SCC 64 : Ramavilasom grandhasala vs NSS karayogam : framing of substantial question of law is a must to acquire jurisdiction to decide second appeal ( sec 100 CPC 1908 )
[11/27, 10:46] Vinothpandian: AIR 1999 SC 1104 : Teherakhatoon vs salambin mohammad : disposal of second appeal without framing substantial question of law not permissible ( sec 100 CPC 1908)
[11/27, 11:57] Vinothpandian: 2014 (1) DRTC 576 : sahara industries ,patrampur road jaspur vs state bank of india : RDDBFI act as well as SARFASI act being complementary to each other , there is no provision in either of acts to debar initiation of a proceeding under SARFASI act during pendency of proceeding under RDDBFI act
[11/27, 12:03] Vinothpandian: 2013 (1) DRTC 799 : bharat minerals grinding industries vs state of jharkhand : secured creditor has to communicate within one week of receipt of representation / objection of borrower , reasons for non – acceptance of objections ( sec 13 SARFASI act 2002 )

You may also like...