Vinothpandian advt law tips

[3/9, 11:03] Vinothpandian: 1979 (1) SCC 345 : joginder singh vs state of punjab : court has power to.add any person as accused if there is sufficient evidence indicating his involvement in offence
[3/9, 11:03] Vinothpandian: AIR 1965 SC 1887 : Rajeswar prasad misra vs state of west bengal : Additional evidence could be ordered by the court if it was of the view that there would be failure of justice without it
[3/9, 11:10] Vinothpandian: 2013 (1) RCR ( cri ) 524 : jeetu @ jitendra vs state of chattisgarh : In an appeal against conviction , it is obligation of court to decide appeal on merits and not accept concession and proceed to deal with sentence
[3/9, 11:10] Vinothpandian: 2012 (4) SCC 134 : Dipak shubhashchandra mehta vs CBI : when under – trial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period , art 21 of constitution is violated
[3/10, 10:38] Vinothpandian: 2007 (4) crimes 140 : Ramesh babu rao devaskar vs state of maharastra : A cryptic message given on telephone by somebody who does not disclose his identity may not satisfy the requirement of sec 154 of CRPC
[3/10, 10:55] Vinothpandian: Supreme court : SLP no 3008 of 2022 dated 28-02-2022 surjeet singh sahni vs state of UP : with regard to specific performance of contract , mere representation does not extend period of limitation , aggrieved person to approach court within reasonable time
[3/10, 10:55] Vinothpandian: Supreme court : civil appeal no 1558 of 2022 dated 22- 02- 2022 sardar meena vs state of Rajasthan : with regard to departmental proceedings such as removal and suspension , suspension not to continue in ad infinitum manner, when it has not to await any criminal proceedings
[3/11, 09:38] Vinothpandian: 2016 (1) DRTC 425 : sudha sharma & another vs punjab national bank : provisions of sec 13 of SARFASI act not dependent on any other provision of law , complete code in itself to enforce security interest
[3/11, 09:38] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) DRTC 479 : sushma suri & another vs mahamedha urban co – op bank ltd : In a suit for declaration , anti dating document or entries to overcome injunctions passed by courts would prima facie constitute fraud
[3/11, 09:49] Vinothpandian: 2013 (1) DRTC 761 : Ratan kumar & others vs state bank of india : Any third party right created after issuance of notice under section 13(2) of SARFASI act has to be ignored
[3/11, 10:08] Vinothpandian: 2017 (5) SCC 737 : N Paraeswaran unni vs G kannan : In a cheque dishonour case , when a notice is sent by registered post and is returned with postal endorsement ” refused ” or ” not available in the house ” or house locked or shop closed or addressee not in station due service has to be presumed
[3/11, 10:21] 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
[3/12, 11:38] Vinothpandian: Supreme court : punjab national bank vs union of india civil appeal no 2196 of 2012 dated 24-02-2022 : By virtue of section 35 of SARFASI act 2002 , provisions of SARFASI act has overriding effect on all other laws
[3/12, 11:38] Vinothpandian: Supreme court : criminal appeal no 301 of 2022 dated 28-02-2022 Amritlal vs shantilal soni & others : for computing period of limitation with regard to criminal complaint before magistrate , relevant date is date of filing of complaint and not date on which magistrate takes cognizance of offence
[3/14, 15:08] Vinothpandian: 2018(3) CTC 526( DB) : Alexander R vs The registrar general high court : art 226 constitution of India : Independence of judiciary is dependant upon conduct and integrity of judicial officers ,if any judicial officer is tainted ,independence of judiciary would be at peril , disciplinary authority took note of enquiry report and passed order and therefore it cannot be mechanically ,interfered wth
[3/14, 15:08] Vinothpandian: 2018(1)CWC 849: Mythili K vs state : art 226 constitution of India : Temporary appointment would not give any right to service benefits, in absence of specific rule , fresh entrants cannot claim benefits of regular pension scheme by virtue of temporary services rendered , having accepted appointment as first appointment ,
Petitioner now cannot contend that she should be included in the old pension scheme
[3/14, 15:08] Vinothpandian: 2018(4)CTC 199: S Rathinavelu Chettiar trust vs R Padmanabha n ( died ) : section 12 contempt of courts act 1971 : contemnor agreed to vacate premises as per undertaking , wilful disobedience and breach of undertaking given to court , conduct of contemnors amount to playing fraud on court , contemnors are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine
[3/14, 15:08] Vinothpandian: 2018(2) Lw 955 : Dr K Rajendran , chairman krishnasamy memorial polytechnic college vs K Dhanalakshmi : contempt of courts act 1971 sec 19,15(1) : Advocate general refused to grant consent for initiation of criminal contempt , appeal would lie only as against order passed by court under section 12 of act ,order of advocate general under section 15(1)(B) is not appeable
[3/14, 15:08] Vinothpandian: 2018(1)CTC 194 : muruganandam P vs J Thirugnanam assistant director of town panchayat : Held all contempt applications must be filed within limitation period prescribed under section 20 of act , in exceptional circumstances of gross injustice to society or case is of public importance inherent powers under article 215 can be exercised
[3/14, 15:08] Vinothpandian: 2018(2) CWC 588 : Roshan overseas vs commissioner of customs : In cases involving fiscal statutes assessee has to avail alternative remedy before filing writ petition
[3/14, 15:08] Vinothpandian: 2018(7) MLJ 138 : Ganesan K vs government of Tamil Nadu : ” motive of giving or securing bribe relating to promise of favourable official act is sufficient to constitute bribe , capacity to perform such promise is not necessary
[3/14, 15:08] Vinothpandian: 2018(2) MWN ( cri ) DCC 54: palanisamy vs K Jayalakshmi : sec 204(4)&256 CRPC : Acquittal for absence of complainant and non _ payment of Batta , as per section 204(4) if process fees not paid , magistrate may dismiss complaint , magistrate cannot acquit accused
[3/14, 15:08] Vinothpandian: 2018(1) LW ( cri ) 584: Lakshmi N vs P damodarasamy : section 378 CRPC : where two views are possible , appellate court should not interfere with finding of acquittal
[3/14, 15:08] Vinothpandian: 2018(3) SCC ( cri ) 710: inspector of police vs S Selvi : SC sec 227,228&239 CRPC / court cannot merely act as a post office or a mouth piece of prosecution , court has to consider broad probabilities of case ,
Total effect of statements and documents produced before court , infirmities appearing in case
[3/15, 16:33] Vinothpandian: 2019 CRILJ 4000 : vishnu kumar tiwari vs state of uttar pradesh : with regard to protest petition before a magistrate , if a protest petition fulfills the requirements of a complaint , the magistrate may treat the protest petition as a complaint and deal with the same as required under section 200 read with sec 202 of the criminal procedure code
[3/15, 16:33] Vinothpandian: 2005 (5) SCC 136 : Gurpal singh vs state of punjab : public interest litigation will not lie in cases of personal and political rivalry
[3/15, 16:33] Vinothpandian: 1999 (1) SCC 271 : sabia khan vs state of UP : filing totally misconceived petition amounts to abuse of process of court and waste of courts time , such litigant is not required to be dealt with lightly
[3/16, 15:31] Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) CWC 164 : kumaravel vs director general of police ( DB ) : illegal arrest of police officer in uniform , was transferred four times within shortime , and feeling victimized , state government directed to pay compensation of Rs 5,00,000 to the victimized officer
[3/16, 15:31] Vinothpandian: 2017 (6) RAJ 304 : Bablu ghosh vs Amrit fresh pvt ltd : Held an erroneous view of law on a debatable point or a wrong exposition of law or a wrong application of law or a failure to apply proper law cannot be considered a mistake or error apparent on face of record
[3/16, 15:31] Vinothpandian: 2019 (1) CWC 79 : Dr Ashwani kumar vs union of india SC : Right to shelter and right to health also significant part of article 21 of the constitution of india particularly in the context of the elderly citizens
[3/16, 15:31] Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) MWN ( cr ) 76 SC : union of india vs dharam pal : prolonged delay in execution of death sentence would have dehumanitizing effect
[3/16, 15:31] Vinothpandian: 2019 (6) SCC 777 : shree Ram janki ji Asthan tapovan mandir vs state of jharkand : primary responsibilty of state police to investigate all offences committed within its jurisdiction , investigation s to be entrusted to CBI only in exceptional circumstances
[3/16, 15:31] Vinothpandian: 2019 (8) MLJ 677 : hindustan construction co ltd vs union of india : while exercising jurisdiction under article 32 court cannot embark on detailed investigation of disputed facts
[3/16, 15:31] Vinothpandian: 2019 (3) MLJ 644 : sunita vs Rajasthan state road transport corporation : ordinarily evidence not re – examined or re – appreciated by Apex court , however apex court can interfere if finding recorded in judgement in appeal found to be manifestly wrong or perverse
[3/16, 15:31] Vinothpandian: 2019 (6) CTC 337 : fazalullah khan vs M Akbar contractor : interim orders granted by supreme court not automatically vacated , such interim order must continue to be in force till appeal decided
[3/17, 14:06] Vinothpandian: 1979 (2) SCC 286 ; union of india vs J Ahmed : deficiency in personal character or personal ability do not constitute misconduct for taking disciplinary proceedings
[3/17, 14:06] Vinothpandian: 2006 (7) SCC 410 : general manager appellate authority , bank of india vs mohd nizamuddin : gravity of misconduct has to be measured in terms of the nature of misconduct
[3/17, 14:06] Vinothpandian: 1999 (8) SCC 715 : state of karnataka vs yarappa reddy : criminal justice should not be allowed to become casualty for wrong s committed by investigating officers
[3/18, 10:08] Vinothpandian: 2017 (5) SCC 817 : SPS Rathore vs CBI : No particular number of witnesses is required for proving a certain fact , it is the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses that matters , evidence is weighed and not counted
[3/18, 10:08] Vinothpandian: 2013 (3) SCC 366 : Ashok kumar vs state of uttarakand : object of sec 145 of CRPC is merely to maintain law and order and to prevent breach of peace by maintaining one or other of parties in possession and not for evicting any person from possession