5 law tips Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) DRTC 663 : Niki nish retail pvt ltd & another vs union bank & others : Even if defaulting party falls short of paying Rs 1 of amount specified in demand notice within specified period , its account would still be a non – performing asset and continue to be treated as such ( section 13 ( 2) SARFASI act )

[08/05, 16:02] Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) DRTC 663 : Niki nish retail pvt ltd & another vs union bank & others : Even if defaulting party falls short of paying Rs 1 of amount specified in demand notice within specified period , its account would still be a non – performing asset and continue to be treated as such ( section 13 ( 2) SARFASI act )
[08/05, 16:02] Vinothpandian: 2001 CRI LJ 3857 : Noorunissa begum vs district collector : Action of jail authorities in not providing medical treatment to an under trial prisoner complaining of chest pain on the ground of observing procedure under the rules and statutes was held as negligent act making the state liable for grant of compensation
[08/05, 16:02] Vinothpandian: 2018 (6) CTC 510 : puruvankara projects ltd rep by its CEO vs Ranjani venkatraman ganesh ; Re appreciation of evidence like court of appeals not permissible under section 34 of the arbitration and coincilation.act
[08/05, 16:02] Vinothpandian: 2019 (3) MWN ( cr ) 491 : Mahipal vs Rajesh kumar SC : mere recording of ” having perused the record ” and ” on facts and circumstances of case does not subserve purpose of reasoned order , non – furnishing of reasons leads to presumption of non – application of mind warranting interference ( sec 439 CRPC 1973 )
[08/05, 16:02] Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) scale 698 : Bir singh vs mukesh kumar : subsequent filling in of an unfilled signed cheque is not an alteration