[8/6, 13:39] Senior Advt Wilson: https://twitter.com/pwilsondmk/status/1688099592578166784?s=48 [8/6, 13:41] sekarreporter1: Today I met Hon’ble @mkstalin TN Chief Minister @CMOTamilnadu and got his wishes for succeeding in the two cases before Hon’ble Supreme Court filed against TN Government decision for construction of #Penmemorial in memory of #Kalaignar100 . @arivalayam @DMKITwing
[8/6, 13:39] Senior Advt Wilson: https://twitter.com/pwilsondmk/status/1688099592578166784?s=48
[8/6, 13:41] sekarreporter1: Today I met Hon’ble @mkstalin TN Chief Minister @CMOTamilnadu and got his wishes for succeeding in the two cases before Hon’ble Supreme Court filed against TN Government decision for construction of #Penmemorial in memory of #Kalaignar100 .
@arivalayam
@DMKITwing
![[07/02, 15:57] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) CCC 188 SC : The gujarat maritime board vs GC pandya : CPC 1908 order 8 rule 10 : power of civil court to pass order in absence of written statement not to be exercised mechanically[07/02, 15:57] Vinothpandian: 1997 (4) SCC 7 : state of UP vs yamuna shankar mishra : Adverse remarks made in confidential report do not smack of arbitrariness but it is for to give an opportunity to a public servant to improve excellence[07/02, 15:57] Vinothpandian: AIR 2001 SC 972 ; In the matter of a judicial officer , criticism or observation must be judicial in nature and should not formally depart from sobriety moderation reserve ( art 235 constitution of india )[07/02, 15:57] Vinothpandian: AIR 2000 MAD 4 ; Akbar Ali vs Alla pitchai : It is the duty of court to issue notice to counsel who had filed caveat and without hearing the counsel , order should not be passed ( sec 148 A CPC 1908 )[07/02, 15:57] Vinothpandian: AIR 1986 Pat 212 : forbesganj jagdish mill ltd vs kalaram : where an ex parte order has been passed admitting a time barred application without giving an opportunity to the respondent to contest the matter , the order must be deemed to be subject to the right of the respondent in this regard[07/02, 15:57] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC 314 : state bank of india vs national housing bank : statements made before commission are expressly made inadmissible in any subsequent proceedings be it civil or criminal , courts are not bound by conclusions and findings rendered by such commission ( commission of inquiry act 1952 )[07/02, 15:57] Vinothpandian: 2014 (13) SCC 681 : eastern coal fields ltd vs bajrangi rabidas : He who seeks equity must do equity , where a person has taken undue advantage , court within its extraordinary jurisdiction can deny discretionary relief[08/02, 19:42] Vinothpandian: 2018(6) CTC 590 ( DB) : V Santhi vs k Kumar ; Hindu marriage act 1955 sec 13(1)(1-a) : Held indulging in character assassination of spouse and failure to substantiate it in manner known to law is cruelty as it would cause actute mental pain and agony to other spouse[08/02, 19:42] Vinothpandian: 2019(3) CTC 391 : state rep by inspector of police ,CBI/ SCB chennai vs VP pandi : CRPC 1973 sec 362 : section 362 bars review of order already passed ,change of counsel would not give rise to new cause of action for court to review its earlier orders passed in criminal proceedings[08/02, 19:42] Vinothpandian: 2017(5) CTC 369 : Srinivasa Rao BR vs Dr BR Shankar : order 1 rule 2 : no evidence can be adduced in absence of pleading ,pleading and evidence must go hand in hand ,evidence includes oral as well as documentary evidence[08/02, 19:42] Vinothpandian: AIR 2007 Raj 117 : Suresh Kumar vs virendra kumar : mere filing of appeal does not make the decree unexecutable[08/02, 19:42] Vinothpandian: AIR 1986 cal 76 : Ranipet chemicals vs swastic stainless steel : client cannot be made to suffer for negligence of his lawyer so when the lawyer was negligent but not the client ,the court should take liberal view and restore the case[09/02, 06:20] Vinothpandian: 2018(1) BC 158 ( DB ) : Kumar Rohit vs Allahabad bank : Auction sale which proceeded on misrepresentation to intending bidders is definitely illegal and liable to be quashed[09/02, 06:20] Vinothpandian: 2016(5) CTC 117 : sarasu vs Ravi : sec 5 limitation act : Application for condoning delay filed under sec 5 to be dealt with liberally and leniently in order to do substantial justice to parties ,length of delay not a material factor for deciding application under section 5 of limitation act[09/02, 06:20] 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[09/02, 06:20] Vinothpandian: 2018(4) BC 220 : Harinarayan G bajaj & others vs reliance captial : Relief sought by parties should not be refused on technical and pedantic grounds ,powers of court are wide with respect to moulding reliefs in interest of justice](https://sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)
