Vinothpandian law tips : 2014 (1) DRTC 627 : Jks infra structure pvt ltd vs Edelweiss asset reconstruction co ltd

[9/23, 09:34] Vinothpandian: 2014 (1) DRTC 627 : Jks infra structure pvt ltd vs Edelweiss asset reconstruction co ltd : once notice under section 13(2) of SARFASI act is issued , said notice constitutes attachment of secured assets
[9/23, 09:34] 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
[9/23, 09:46] 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 under section 13 ( 3 – A) SARFASI act
[9/23, 09:46] Vinothpandian: 2015 (1) DRTC 489 : smt shadhna shukla vs debts recovery appellate tribunal : In pursuance to auction under SARFASI act , after accepting bid and confirming sale as per provisions of SARFASI act , auction purchaser becomes absolute owner of that property
[9/23, 09:59] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) DRTC 505 : jose Antony thottassery vs Anil kuruvilla & others : SARFASI act does not contain any provision enabling opposite party to raise a plea of set off or counter claim
[9/24, 11:32] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) DRTC 841 : K sami vs branch manager , bank of india : mere decision.of financial institution.to approach magistrate under sec 14 would also constitute a measure under sec 13 (4) of the SARFASI act
[9/24, 11:32] Vinothpandian: 2017 (2) DRTC 277 : Bhagwati printers pvt ltd vs IDBI bank ltd : An order rejecting or granting an aplication for condonation of delay in filing an application under sec 17 SARFASI 2002 is an order under sec 17 of the SARFASI act and it would be appealable under sec 18 of the act
[9/24, 11:32] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) DRTC 525 : Bank of baroda vs Ranjan chetia : suit in question involving allegations of fraud against defendants before DRT , held allegations can be tried by civil court only , not by DRT which has no power to pass decree but can only issue recovery certificates
[9/25, 10:58] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC 404 : Bobby sebastin & another vs ICICI bank and another : only an officer of bank as specified by board of directors can issue a notice of demand under sec 13(2) of the SARFASI.act as contemplated under rule 2(b) of the security interest rules
[9/25, 10:58] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) DRTC 86 : Union bank of india vs Rajendra wadhwa & others : As per rule 8(2) of the security interest rules possession notice is to be published in leading newspapers not later than seven days from date of taking possession
[9/25, 10:58] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC 27 SC : mathew varghese vs Amrita kumari : section 13 (8) engrafted in SARFASI act primarily with a view to protect right of a borrower , such a ownership right being a constitutional right protected under art 300 A of the constitution
[9/27, 09:41] Vinothpandian: 2013 (1) SCC ( cri ) 438 ; sunil clifford daniel vs state of punjab : It is obligatory on the part of the accused while being examined under section 313 CRPC to furnish some explanation with respect to the incriminating circumstances associated with him , court must take note of such explanation even in a case of circumstantial evidence to decide as to whether or not the chain of circumstances is complete
[9/27, 09:41] Vinothpandian: 2011 (13) SCC 744 : Amit singh vs state of maharastra : With regard to claim of juvenility , certificate issued by school authorities is admissible in evidence
[9/27, 09:41] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) SCC 520 : Anita malhotra vs Apparel export promotion council : In a complaint under NI act pertaining to a company , mere bold statement that he or she was in charge of and was responsible to the company for conduct of its business is not sufficient
[9/27, 10:33] Vinothpandian: 2013 (2) RCR ( cri ) 839 : Mariappan V vs state of TN : Existence of circumstances bringing case within exception under section 84 IPC lies on the accused
[9/27, 10:33] Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) crimes 141 : state of orissa vs ujjal kumar burdhan : unless a case of gross abuse of power is made out against those incharge of investigation , high court should avoid interfering at a prematured or preliminary stage of investigation.
[9/28, 09:37] Vinothpandian: 2018 (16) SCC 408 : shafin jahan vs Asokan KM and others : Parental love cannot be allowed to fluster the right of choice of an adult in choosing a man to whom she gets married
[9/28, 09:37] Vinothpandian: 2018 CRI LJ 4298 : sunil CB singh baghel and others vs state of maharastra : With regard to media reporting of criminal trial , sessions judge has no power to pass order banning print , electronic and social media from.publishing posting and reporting court proceedings , it is only high court and supreme court that have power to pass postponement orders in exceptional circumstances for a brief period
[9/28, 10:00] Vinothpandian: 2018 (2) crimes 225 : Asian resurfacing of road agency pvt ltd vs CBI : mandate of speedy justice applies to the prevention of corruption act
[9/28, 10:00] Vinothpandian: 2018 CRI LJ 1557 : khumukcham nikita devi vs state of manipur : A victim can engage a lawyer of her choice to assist the prosecution with the permission of the court ( sec 301 CRPC 1973 )