[13/07, 17:36] Vinothpandian: 2018(3) BC 389 ; India affordable housing solutions vs konmark infra developers : oral plea to contradict written agreement is not tenable in terms of section 91 of evidence act[13/07, 17:36] Vinothpandian: 2021 (2) CTC 7 : Gopuram enterprises ltd vs Integrated finance company ltd : Held post – award petition for interim measures maintainable only until award becomes enforceable ( section 9 Arbitration and conciliation act 1996 )[13/07, 17:36] Vinothpandian: 2019(4) BC 1 SC : Bajarang shyam sundar Agarwal vs central bank of india : SARFASI act ; If any of tenants claim that he is entitled to possession of secured asset for term of more than year it has to be supported by execution of registered instrument ,if tenant relied on unregistered instrument or oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession ,tenant is not entitled to possession of secured asset for more than period prescribed under sec 107 of TP act[13/07, 17:36] Vinothpandian: 2017 (2) CCC 214 : sumit kumar vs naresh kumar : non – understanding and ignorance of any law is no excuse[13/07, 17:36] Vinothpandian: 2011 (3) crimes 696 ; mahindra hire purchase ( regd ) vs Biru Ram : filling up a blank cheque behind back is abuse of process of law[13/07, 17:36] Vinothpandian: 2005 (1) Acquittal 45 : Abdul farid khan vs state of chattisgarh : with regard to evidentiary value of child witness , as a rule of prudence such evidence must be tested on close scruitny , requirements to be satisfied before court placed reliance on such evidence[13/07, 17:36] Vinothpandian: 2013 (1) CTC 399 : Gian chand & brothers and another vs Rattan lal @ Rattan singh : Burden of proving fraud , undue influence or misrepresentation lies on the person making it , while burden of proof never shifts , onus of proof shifts , 2006 (5) SCC 558 relied upon