0/03, 09:26] Vinothpandian: 2009 (1) RCR ( criminal ) SC : RB Ramlingam vs RB bhuvaneswari : delay of 568 days in filing special leave petition condoned on the ground that review application against judgement of single judge remained pending in high court ( art 136 of the constitution of india )[30/03, 09:26] Vinothpandian: 2019 (5)

[30/03, 09:26] Vinothpandian: 2009 (1) RCR ( criminal ) SC : RB Ramlingam vs RB bhuvaneswari : delay of 568 days in filing special leave petition condoned on the ground that review application against judgement of single judge remained pending in high court ( art 136 of the constitution of india )
[30/03, 09:26] Vinothpandian: 2019 (5) CTC 914 : Goomo orbit corporate & leisure travels pvt ltd vs GI Retail pvt ltd : limitation period for initiating defamation suit for damages is one year from date of publication and from time such publication known to parties
[30/03, 09:26] Vinothpandian: 2020 (1) CTC 33 : Hariba tatyaba more vs dada ekhatnath more ( FB ) : procedural laws intended to sub – serve cause of substantive justice , inherent power under section 151 of code can be exercised in interest of justice to restore suit dismissed under order 9 rule 5 ( 1) CPC 1908
[30/03, 09:26] Vinothpandian: 2014 (1) DRTC 1693 : Alex kuruvilla vs oriental bank of commerce : SARFASI act being a special act and a code in itself to protect secured assets of bank , such assets has to be sold by modes provided under the security interest ( enforcement ) rules rule 8 and 9 , Rule 8 (8) permits sale by private treaty only with condition that private sale terms have to be by a written treaty and not an oral one
[30/03, 09:26] Vinothpandian: 2001 (4) SCC 667 : state of UP vs shambu nath singh : criminal justice cannot be allowed to be defeated solely on account of inaction or lapses of the court in adhering to the mandates of law