10/31, 14:14] Vinothpandian: AIR 2019 SC 3482 : vishnu kumar tiwari vs state of uttar pradesh ; In a criminal trial , till process is issued , the accused may not have the right to be heard. Weekly round up
[10/31, 14:14] Vinothpandian: AIR 2019 SC 3482 : vishnu kumar tiwari vs state of uttar pradesh ; In a criminal trial , till process is issued , the accused may not have the right to be heard
[11/1, 14:53] Vinothpandian: 1996 (3) SCC 364 : state bank of patiala vs SK sharma : Even a mandatory requirement can be waived by the person concerned if such requirement is in his interest and not in public interest
[11/1, 14:53] Vinothpandian: 2014 (14) SCC 77 : state of Rajasthan vs surendra mohnot : Erroneous concession by counsel pertaining to position in law , held there can be no estoppel against law
[11/1, 14:53] Vinothpandian: 2015 (1) SCC 347 : state of UP vs Arvind kumar srivastava : Entitlement to benefit of judgement in rem with intention to benefit all similarily situated persons irrespective of whether they had approached court or not , not affected by delay and laches
[11/1, 14:53] Vinothpandian: 2010 (10) SCC 422 : mumbai international airport ltd vs golden chariot airport : Held litigant cannot change and choose its stand to suit to his convenience
[11/1, 14:54] Vinothpandian: 1991 (4) SCC 279 : Nilofar insaf vs state of MP : A settled issue cannot be belatedly sought to be unsettled in a collateral attack on ground which does not go to the root of the matter
[11/1, 14:54] Vinothpandian: 2005 (1) SCC 493 : K ganesh shet vs AK jayarama sheka : mercy cannot subvert any legal right upheld by lower court
[11/1, 14:54] Vinothpandian: 1971 (2) SCC 58 : Harkishan singh vs state of punjab : where equities are equal , the one first in point of time shall prevail
[11/1, 14:54] Vinothpandian: 2020 (6) CTC 724 : Rajasekar vs govindammal : Application under order 9 rule 7 CPC can be filed any time before judgement delivered in suit or proceedings
[11/1, 14:56] Vinothpandian: 2020 (6) CTC 741 : sreekanth G vs kasi housing : Application under section 34 of arbitration and coincilation act not appeal but merely challenge to arbitral award within limited scope of section 34
[11/1, 14:56] Vinothpandian: 2007 (3) crimes 199 : Anil kumar vs state of HP : A normal person who is victim of murderous assault would not side with actual assailants and falsely implicate innocent person
[11/2, 10:20] Vinothpandian: Supreme court : SLP ( crl ) 1247 of 2022 dated 21 – 02 – 2022 Rajesh seth vs state of chattisgarh ; Indefinite adjournment in matter relating to anticipatory bail application after admitting it is detrimental to valuable right of a person
[11/2, 10:20] Vinothpandian: Supreme court : criminal appeal no 1834 of 2022 dated 21 / 10/ 2022 sumitha pradeep vs Arun kumar CK : custodial interrogation can be one of relevant aspects to be considered while deciding anticipatory bail application
[11/2, 13:48] Vinothpandian: 2017 (2) DRTC 244 : B Rajarajeshwari vs presiding officer drt 2 : A litigant should not be put in a disadvantages situation by act of court , sec 152 of CPC equally applies to sec 26(2) and (3) of RDDBFI act 1993
[11/2, 13:48] Vinothpandian: 2016 (1) DRTC 425 : sudha sharma & another vs punjab national bank : provision of sec 13 of SARFASI act not dependent on any other provision of law , complete code in itself to enforce security interest ,
[11/2, 13:48] Vinothpandian: 2007 (4) crimes 244 : sarav investment & FCPL vs lyods register of shipping IOSPF : In a cheque dishonour case service of notice is a part of cause of action for lodging complaint
[11/3, 15:22] Vinothpandian: 2016 (3) CCC 148 : M chinna karuppasamy vs kanimozhi : If charge of adultery is proved as against the wife , she is not entitled to get any amount as maintenance ( sec 125 ( 4) CRPC 1973 )
[11/3, 15:22] Vinothpandian: 2017 (1) CCC 642 : Pritimaya giri vs satish kumar agarwalla : Magistrate in cases relating to offences under sec 138 NI act need not insist on the personal attendance of the accused ( sec 205 CRPC 1973 )
[11/3, 15:22] Vinothpandian: 2015 (1) CCC 183 SC : punjab state power corporation ltd vs punjab state electricity regulatory commission : interest of consumers to be balanced with recovery of cost of electricity in a reasonable manner ( electricity act 2003 sec 61 ( g) )
[11/3, 15:22] Vinothpandian: 2003 (3) RCR ( criminal ) 354 SC : Narendera nath khaware vs parasnath khaware : state not filing any special leave petition or appeal , an appeal by special leave at the instance of complainant is maintainable
[11/3, 15:22] Vinothpandian: 2008 (4) RCR ( criminal ) SC : Lalliram vs state of MP : A decision has to be considered in the background of the factual scenario , in criminal cases the question of a precedent particularly relating to appreciation of evidence is really of no consequence
[11/4, 10:54] Vinothpandian: 2016 (1) DRTC 270 : Pushpinder kaur vs punjab and sindh bank : Held absence of counsel due to strike call cannot be a legal and valid or sufficient ground for recalling order passed dismissing appeal for non – prosecution
[11/4, 10:54] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) DRTC 729 ; kotak mahindra bank ltd vs kothari industrial corporation : If tribunals and subordinate courts are allowed to function without following binding observations of superior courts there will be judicial chaos
[11/4, 10:54] Vinothpandian: AIR 2019 SC 1692 : kaikhosrou kavasji framji vs union of india :Held for doctrine of merger to operate , superior court must go into merits of issues decided by subordinate court and record findings on its merits , in absence of same , order of subordinate court continues to hold field
[11/4, 10:54] Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) MWN ( cri ) 1 ( DB ) : state rep by inspector of police vs VP pandi : facts indisputably widely known to public can be taken judicial notice of by court
[11/4, 10:54] Vinothpandian: 2017 (2) DRTC 784 : Dipankar chakraborty vs Allahabad bank : sec 19 RDDBFI act : Pendency of proceeding before DRT under RDDBFI.act will not save period of limitation for a proceeding under SARFASI act , if proceeding under SARFASI act is by itself barred by laws of limitation
[11/4, 10:54] Vinothpandian: 2016 (2) DRTC 128 : state bank of india vs Veetee fine foods ltd : When bank or parties seek stamp of approval of compromise or settlement , then tribunal would be competent to examine said settlement or compromise in terms of sec 19 ( 20- A ) of RDDBFI act
[11/5, 11:47] Vinothpandian: 2007(11) SCC 297 ; madhumilan syntex ltd vs union of india : income tax / failure to pay tax deducted at source ,levy of penalty for non – payment of tax does not affect power to prosecute accused persons
[11/5, 11:47] Vinothpandian: 2014(5) SCC 139 : sasi enterprises vs assistant commissoner of income tax : income tax / failure to file return , declaration or statement made in indivdual returns by partners that accounts of firm are not finalized ,hence no return has been filed by firm will not absolve firm in filing the statutory return under sec 139(1) of the IT act
[11/5, 11:47] Vinothpandian: 2013(1) crimes 208 : lokesh kirankumar shah vs shraddha lokesh shah : once legal provision has been interpreted by supreme court of india after considering all aspects of matter such interpretation made by supreme court would be binding on all courts within the territory of india
[11/5, 11:47] Vinothpandian: 2001 (3) SCC 459 : income tax / commissioner of income tax vs bhupen champak lal dalal : stay of criminal prosecution ,grant of interim order of stay when ultimately the result of proceedings before income – tax appellate authority have a definite bearing on the criminal cases alleged against assesses is permissible and proper
[11/5, 11:47] Vinothpandian: 2016(1) MLJ ( cri ) 1 : V vinod kumar vs V Arunadevi : Any observation made by high court ,while disposing of habeas corpus petition would not curtail the rights of an aggrieved person to seek for interim custody of child under section 21 of the domestic violence act
[11/5, 11:47] Vinothpandian: 2012(8) SCC 441 : Avishek goenka vs union of india : once supreme court interprets a provision of law ,law so declared would be law of land in terms of art 141 of the constitution of india
[11/5, 11:47] Vinothpandian: 2014(3) SCC 389 : Vijayander kumar vs state of Rajasthan : only because a civil remedy may also be available to complainant that itself cannot be a ground to quash a criminal proceedings
[11/5, 11:47] Vinothpandian: 2009 CRILJ 1742 : state of punjab vs pritam chand : merely because an act has a civil profile is not sufficient to denude it of its criminal outfit
[11/7, 10:43] Vinothpandian: 2008 (4) SCC 300 : krishna kumar Birla vs Rajendra singh ( para 124) : what could be done and has not been done by a court of equity does not create a precedent , it does not even have a persusaive value
[11/7, 10:43] Vinothpandian: 2012 (3) SCC 522 : state of gujarat vs Essar oil ltd : Held in construing an exemption provision , question of equity does not arise , exception or exemption provision held must be construed strictly
[11/7, 10:43] Vinothpandian: 1982 (2) SCC 396 ; mayur panabhai shah vs state of gujarat : No presumption that the doctor is always a witness of truth , the evidence of a doctor has to be appreciated like any other witness
[11/7, 10:43] Vinothpandian: 2020 (6) CTC 777 : chennai metro rail ltd vs lanco infratech ltd : Interim orders passed under section 9 of the arbitration and coincilation act cannot upset orders passed by tribunal
[11/7, 10:43] Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) DRTC 412 : sundaram BNP paribas home finance ltd vs Mir ali : loan amount secured by mortgage , cannot seek prohibitory order against garnishee by way of interim measure of protection under sec 9 of the arbitration and coincilation act 1996
[11/7, 10:43] Vinothpandian: 2014 (1) DRTC 633 : Dr PB health and glow clinic ltd vs oriental bank of commerce : notice duly served in presence of occupants of secured assets ( section 13 (2) SARFASI act ) counting of 45 days for preferring appeal under section 17 will be from date of service of notice by affixation and not from date when matter got advertised
[11/8, 13:55] Vinothpandian: AIR 1964 Bom 232; Anand Rao vs Krishnan ji : An order of dismissal for default of an application for restoration of the application for stay of execution is appealable
[11/8, 13:55] Vinothpandian: AIR 1966 Ori 1 : Ramchandra Prasad vs sham biharilal : An appellate court is entitled to take into consideration any change in the law
[11/8, 13:55] Vinothpandian: AIR 2017 SC 1432 : Sasi vs Aravindakshan Nair : An application for review has to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible
[11/8, 13:55] Vinothpandian: AIR 2011 Gau 75 : Biman mahanta vs chenehi Saikia : review of judgement on the ground of sympathy or emotion is not permissible
[11/8, 13:55] Vinothpandian: 2018(8) MLJ 21 SC : shriram EPC Ltd vs Rio glass solar : arbitration and coincilation act 1996 sec 48&49 : Held Award that is referred to in indian stamp act 1899 is an award that is made in territory of India ,award has never included foreign award in schedule 1 of indian stamp act 1899 from very inception till date ,foreign award is not liable for stamp duty
[11/8, 13:55] Vinothpandian: AIR 1974 SC 2086 : Daktar mudi vs state of WB : It is the duty of the court as custodian and sentinel on the every vigilant guard of the freedom of an individual to scrutinise with due care and anxiety ,that this previous right which activities has under the constitution is not in any way taken away capriciously arbitrarily or without legal justification
[11/8, 13:55] Vinothpandian: 1995(3) SCC 507 ; DDA vs skipper construction : An apology tendered at a stage when it was evident that the contemnor was going to be sentenced was held to be not Bonafide
[11/9, 14:42] Vinothpandian: 2013 (4) CCC 315 SC ; kailash vs Nanhku & others : Purpose of providing time schedule for filing written statement under order 8 rule 1 of CPC is to expedite and not to scuttle hearing , provision being in domain of procedural law has to be held directory and not mandatory
[11/9, 14:42] Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) MWN ( cri ) 626 : dhurga vaishnavi shivamoorthi vs murthy : conduct of accused subsequent to release on bail and supervening circumstances alone relevant for cancellation of bail , bail cannot be cancelled if case does not fall within these two heads in view of bar under sec 362 CRPC
[11/9, 14:42] Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) scale 698 : Bir singh vs mukesh kumar : subsequent filling in of an unfilled signed cheque is not an alteration
[11/9, 14:42] Vinothpandian: 2016 (1) CCC 475 ; Dr Bibhas debnath vs state of west bengal : pleadings in a proceedings under sec 125 CRPC are like pleadings in a civil case and pleadings could be amended in appropriate circumstances
[11/9, 14:42] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) CCC 414 : Parasagani venkaiah & another vs Pandi prasad : Records prepared by investigating officer in criminal case cannot be looked into by the accused , except for purposes to mark as contradictions or omissions during trial ( sec 162 CRPC 1973 )
[11/9, 14:42] Vinothpandian: 2013 (4) CCC 461 : Ragni chopra vs Rajesh : To read a particular passage in a document is not a correct method of its interpretation , document is to be read as a whole to gather its true import
[11/10, 14:15] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) crimes 161 : sundeep kumar Bafna vs state of maharastra : Per incuriam rule is strictly and correctly applicable to ratio decidendi and not to obiter dicta
[11/10, 14:15] Vinothpandian: 2013(2) SCC 114 : U sree vs U srinivas : Mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof
[11/10, 14:15] Vinothpandian: 2011 (4) SCC 402 : Ashok Tshering bhutia vs state of sikkim : A mere error , omission or irregularity in sanction is not considered to be fatal unless it has resulted in a failure of justice or has been occsaioned thereby
[11/10, 14:15] Vinothpandian: 2020 (2) CTC 834 : chairman / managing director uttar pradesh vs Ram gopal : constitution of India ( service law ) : state and its instrumentalities expected to extend benefit of judicial pronouncement to all similarly placed employees without forcing each person to indivdually approach courts
[11/10, 14:15] Vinothpandian: 2020(2) CTC 877 SC : Bank of baroda vs kotak mahindra bank ltd : CPC 1908 sec 44 A : party seeking execution of foreign decree must also necessarily file written application in terms of order 21 rule 11(2) , court cannot execute foreign decree without such application , such application not covered under any other article of limitation act , held application for executing foreign decree covered under article 137 , applicable limitation is 3 years
[11/10, 14:15] Vinothpandian: 2020 (3) CTC 157 : manikandan vs P palani : central motor vehicles rules 1989 , rule 21 : drunken driving a great havoc for society , authorities in order to deter drunken driving directed to suspend or cancel licence of drunken drivers as contemplated in acts and rules
[11/10, 14:15] Vinothpandian: 2020 (3) CTC 1 (DB) : K Nirai mathi Azhagan vs union of india : income tax act 1961 section 234- F : permitting filing of returns after due date a privilege , intent of legislature to levy fee to motivate assessee to be prompt in filing returns or to pay additional fee , section 234 – f held a regulatory mechanism and not an arbitrary provision
[11/10, 14:15] Vinothpandian: 2015 (6) CTC 442 : manikandan vathan chettiar vs madras high court : Any grievance against sitting judge of high court has to be dealt with by bar according to ” in house procedure set by supreme court
[11/10, 14:15] Vinothpandian: 2018 (6) CTC 709 ; ondimuthu @ NO muthu vs Arulmigu meenskshi sundaraseshwar devasthanam : sec 47 CPC 1908 : once right to come on record as party in execution proceedings is negatived , application by same person under section 47 not maintainable
[11/11, 10:14] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) DRTC 691 : Punjab national bank vs consumer disputes redressal forum & others : section 34 of the SARFASI act expressly barred jurisdiction of not only civil courts but also of other authorities which would include consumer forum from granting injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken under SARFASI act
[11/11, 10:14] Vinothpandian: 2013 (1) DRTC 173 : Zephyr exports pvt ltd & others vs central bank of india : Reciept or non – reciept of demand notice under section 13(2) of the SARFASI.act would involve adjudication of a disputed question of fact , for which DRT constituted under sec 17 of the act is best suited , entertaining of a writ petition declined
[11/11, 10:14] Vinothpandian: 2016 (2) DRTC 289 : sundaram.BNP paribas home finance ltd malappuram vs nisha : Recovery proceedings initiated under SARFASI.act , only prayer in writ court that petitioner may be permitted to clear outstanding amount due to bank in easy instalments , writ.court exercised its discretion in granting ten instalments to pay entire outstanding amount along with interest accrued , interest of bank protected
[11/11, 10:14] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) DRTC 801 : sterlite technologies ltd vs union of india : Elements of a prima facie case and question of financial hardship required to be considered by appellate tribunal while deciding on waiver application ( sec 21 RDDBFI act 1993 )
[11/11, 10:14] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) DRTC 836 : Hdfc bank ltd mumbai & others vs prestige educational trust : section 13 (4) of the SARFASI act not conferred any power on secured creditor to take possession of any assets other than secured assets , if attempted its ultravires to provisions of act
[11/11, 10:14] Vinothpandian: 2012 (8) SCC 651 : shyam.babu vs state of UP : limitation act 1963 does not apply to criminal proceedings unless there is express and specific provision to that effect
[11/11, 10:14] Vinothpandian: 2005 (6) SCC 109 : Rajendra sail vs madhya pradesh high court bar association : Judgements of courts are public documents and can be commented upon , analysed and criticized but it has to be in dignified manner without attributing motives
[11/12, 19:18] Vinothpandian: 2008 (1) SCC 683 : divisional manager , aravali golf club vs chander hass : If there is law , judges can certainly enforce it , but judges cannot create a law and seek to enforce it
[11/12, 19:18] Vinothpandian: 2014( 4) CTC 467 : Haryana state coop supply and marketing federation ltd vs jayam textiles : As per criminal jurisprudence substantial justice ought not to be denied merely on account of procedural irregularities
[11/12, 19:18] Vinothpandian: 2010 (8) SLT 669 : Ashish Ranjan vs Anupama tandon : With regard to custody of child , mutual settlement between parties cannot come in way of well established principles in respect of custody of child cases
[11/12, 19:18] Vinothpandian: 1976 (3) SCC 119 : kale vs deputy director of consolidation : On the basis of invalid gift deed , no claim of title or family settlement can be made
[11/12, 19:18] Vinothpandian: 1989 (1) crimes 521 : Harekrishna satpathy and another vs maheshwar sahu : An assault by a public servant on a person can never be a part of official duty nor can it be said to be in discharge of official duty and therefore sanction for prosecution under section 197 will not be necessary
