[02/04, 10:03] Vinothpandian: 2004 (4) crimes 277 : V Raja kumari vs P subbarama naidu : In a proceedings under NI act non – service of notice is not a ground for rejecting complaint even before it is numbered[02/04, 10:03] Vinothpandian: 2012 (6) SCC 357 : Registrar general patna high court vs pandey gajendra prasad : Members of subordinate judiciary are not only under control but also under care and custody of high court[02/04, 10:03] Vinothpandian: AIR 2019 SC 546 : Ashish jain vs makrand singh : Once a confessional statement of accused on facts is found to be involuntary it is hit by art 20 (3) of the constitution , rendering such a confessional statement is inadmissible[02/04, 10:03] Vinothpandian: 2016 (7) MLJ 419 : kedar nath yadav vs state of west bengal : determination of proper compensation pertaining to land acquisition cannot be considered in writ jurisdiction[02/04, 10:03] Vinothpandian: 2013 (7) SCC 685 : commissioner of police new delhi vs mehar singh : Art 14 of the constitution of india does not envisage negative equality , any illegality once committed cannot be allowed to be perpetuated[02/04, 10:03] Vinothpandian: 2017 (2) DRTC 309 : Lakshya concosts pvt ltd vs bank of baroda : chief metropolitan magistrate or district magistrate only empowered to assist secured creditor in taking over possession of secured asset ( sec 14 SARFASI act )[02/04, 10:03] 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 )[02/04, 10:03] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) CTC 639 : sidharth S vs P lalitha kumari : Power under order 38 rule 5 CPC 1908 is drastic and extraordinary , such power should not be exercised mechanically or merely for asking

by Sekar Reporter · April 2, 2024