Vinothpandian: 2015 (1) SCC 788 : PS meherhomji vs KT vijay kumar ; judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment [11/25, 13:26] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) CTC 673 : muthukrishnan R vs union of india : when an advocate is appearing as party in person , he is bound to maintain norms and decorum of legal profession

[11/25, 13:26] Vinothpandian: 2015 (1) SCC 788 : PS meherhomji vs KT vijay kumar ; judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment
[11/25, 13:26] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) CTC 673 : muthukrishnan R vs union of india : when an advocate is appearing as party in person , he is bound to maintain norms and decorum of legal profession
[11/25, 13:26] Vinothpandian: 2014 (1) CTC 204 : vijay anand RD vs secretary bar council of tamil nadu : Power to grant license and revocation would include power to order interim suspension of legal practioner pending disciplinary proceedings ( Advocates act 1961 sec 6 )
[11/25, 13:26] Vinothpandian: 2014 (5) CTC 764 : Sillicon valley auto components pvt ltd vs Indian bank : Disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition
[11/25, 13:26] Vinothpandian: 2014 (1) CTC 726 : sathu dharmananda saraswathi swamigal trust vs sree shanmugha seva sangam.nattar trust : CPC 1908 order 17 held no law says that once memo is filed stating petition of transfer is filed matter to be adjourned
[11/25, 13:26] Vinothpandian: 2012 (3) SCC ( cri ) 761 : Kalu @ Amit vs state of haryana : courts must not by remissness or inefficiency of investigating agency and acquit accused if core of prosecution case is undented and established
[11/25, 13:26] Vinothpandian: 2010 (15) SCC 118 : Gian singh vs state of punjab : courts should not take over the functions of parliament or executive
[11/26, 11:21] Vinothpandian: 2014 (4) CTC 593 : sudalaimani vs state : Any confession made to police officer after commencement of investigation cannot be used in favour of accused , as same barred under section 162 CRPC
[11/26, 11:21] Vinothpandian: 2017 (1) CTC 198 : Thirumalai S vs S Govindarajan : unregistered partition deed cannot be admitted in evidence even for collateral purpose
[11/26, 11:21] Vinothpandian: 2016 (1) CTC 335 SC : northern Railway vs pioneer publicity corp pvt ltd : Held sec 34 (3) of arbitration and coincilation act has no application in re – filing petition but only applies to initial filing of objection
[11/26, 11:21] Vinothpandian: 2000 (2) SCC 636 : G sagar suri vs state of UP : courts must be vary of being used as tools by exercising a criminal jurisdiction , since of late civil litigants are seeking to settle scores or using the criminal law machinery to resolve civil disputes
[11/26, 11:21] Vinothpandian: 2009 (3) RCR ( cri ) 338 : Ravindra KM Goenka vs Rugmini Ram Raghav spinners pvt ltd : while entertaining a petition under sec 482 CRPC to quash criminal proceedings , the materials furnished by defence need not be looked into and can be entertained only at the time of trial
[11/28, 10:42] Vinothpandian: 2019 (3) MLJ 468 : varun pahwa vs Renu chaudhary : Power to grant amendment of pleadings is intended to serve ends of justice and not governed by narrow technical limitations ( order 6 rule 17 CPC 1908 )
[11/28, 10:42] Vinothpandian: 2013 (2) SCC (cri ) 307 : Ramswaroop vs state of MP : In a murder case , the court cannot impose a lesser sentence than what is prescribed in law
[11/28, 10:42] Vinothpandian: 2012 (3) All India criminal LR SC 197 : munna kumar upadhyaya vs state of AP : If the accused gave incorrect or false answers during the course of his statement under section 313 CRPC , the court can draw an adverse inference against him
[11/28, 10:42] Vinothpandian: AIR 1994 SC 845 : state of MP vs Ramesh kumar sharma : In a departmental action relating to compassionate appointment , the applicant has no right to any particular post of his choice on compassionate ground , he can only claim to be considered for that post
[11/28, 10:42] Vinothpandian: 2013 (4) All India criminal LR ( DB ) 456 : Re : Ketabul SK : mere failure to disclose pendency of a bail application before a superior court is not a relevant ground for cancellation of bail ( sec 438 CRPC 1973 )
[11/28, 10:42] Vinothpandian: 1994 (4) SCC 225 : morgan stanley mutual fund vs kartick das : Every man who pays money as the price of cost of goods and services is a consumer under the act . A prospective investor is not a consumer under the consumer protection act
[11/29, 13:37] Vinothpandian: AIR 2016 SC 2914 : Prakash nagardas dubal – shaha vs sou meena prakash : unsuccessful divorce proceedings cannot adversely affect the maintainability of application filed by contesting respondents under the domestic violence act
[11/29, 13:37] Vinothpandian: 2011 (14) SCC 615 : Punjab state warehousing corp vs sh durga ji traders : An order of exemption from personal appearance continues to be in force till it is revoked or recalled
[11/29, 13:37] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) DRTC 673 : K padma vs K Ramachandran & others : Property attached in favour of bank earlier to alleged agreement for sale , provisions of sec 64 of CPC not applicable
[11/29, 13:37] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC 609 SC : Metro exporters p ltd & another vs state bank of india : An international funds transfer may be subject to more than one law , an international funds transfer may be either onshore where either payers bank or payees bank is located in country of currency transfer , and offshore where neither bank is located in country of currency of transfer
[11/29, 13:37] Vinothpandian: 1975 (2) SCC 840 : New india insurance co ltd vs shanti misra : discretion given by sec 5 of limitation act should not be defined or crystallised so as to convert a discretionary matter into a rigid rule of law
[11/29, 13:37] Vinothpandian: 2012 (4) SCC 134 : Dipak shubhashchandra mehta vs CBI : when under – trial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period , art 21 of constitution is violated
[11/29, 13:37] Vinothpandian: 1984 (4) SCC 66 : OP kathpalia vs lakhmir singh : If refusal to condone delay results in grave miscarriage of justice , it would be a ground to condone delay
[11/30, 15:34] Vinothpandian: Supreme court : criminal appeal no 1941 of 2022 dated 10-11-2022 Jain p jose vs Santosh & another : Presumption under section 139 of NI act rebuttable and open to accused to raise defence where existence of legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested
[11/30, 15:55] Vinothpandian: Supreme court : civil appeal no 8818 of 2022 dated 23 – 11 – 2022 : M / S meenakshi solar power pvt ltd vs M/ S Abhyudaya green economic zones pvt ltd : With regard to appointment of arbitrator under section 11 (6) in contractual matters , even if performance of contract has come to end , contract can still be in existence for certain purposes in respect of disputes arising under it or in connection with it
[11/30, 18:10] Vinothpandian: 2017 (6) RAJ 304 : Bablu ghosh vs Amrit fresh pvt ltd : Held an erroneous view of law on a debatable point or a wrong exposition of law or a wrong application of law or a failure to apply proper law cannot be considered a mistake or error apparent on face of record
[11/30, 18:11] Vinothpandian: 2019 (6) CTC 337 : fazalullah khan vs M Akbar contractor : interim orders granted by supreme court not automatically vacated , such interim order must continue to be in force till appeal decided
[11/30, 18:11] Vinothpandian: 2006 (3) SCC 276 : state of UP vs sheo shanker lal srivastava : judicial review may require full blown merit judgementn
[12/1, 16:35] Vinothpandian: 2018 (1) SCC ( cri ) 390 : Asfaq vs state of Rajasthan : By committing a crime , a person does not ceases to be a human being , for a prisoner all fundamental rights are an enforceable reality though restricted by the fact of imprisonment
[12/1, 16:35] Vinothpandian: AIR 2017 SC 3948 : Rakesh kumar paul vs state of assam : It is the constitutional duty of the court to provide free legal aid to the accused in proceedings , if the accused is unable to engage a counsel
[12/1, 16:39] Vinothpandian: 2011 (1) crimes 294 : Achuthanandan vs R Balakrishna pillai : In a corruption case appellate court has full power to review , re appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which if an acquittal order is founded , criminal procedure code put no restrictions , however appellate court must bear in mind that in cases of acquittal , there is double presumption in favour of the accused
[12/1, 16:39] Vinothpandian: 2013 (1) DRTC 727 : manorama mohanty vs Authorised officer , urban cooperative bank ltd : Held cooperative bank can enforce security interest created in favour of bank by the loanee under sec 13 of SARFASI act
[12/1, 16:39] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) DRTC 457 : Bankey lal gupta & another vs bank of baroda : mere financial hardship cannot be a ground for asking tribunal to excessive waiver ( sec 21 RDDBFI act 1993 )
[12/1, 16:39] 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 )
[12/2, 10:24] Vinothpandian: 2007 (10) SCC 30 : dimple gupta ( minor ) vs Rajiv gupta : An illegitimate child is entitled to maintainence from his / her father
[12/2, 10:24] Vinothpandian: 2021 (3) CTC 274 : Ravindran OP vs MS subbaiah : Post – trial amendment permissible , if proposed amendment is bonafide , relevant and necessary for deciding rights of parties to litigation ( order 6 rule 17 CPC 1908 )
[12/2, 10:24] Vinothpandian: 2021 (4) CTC 269 : Executive director corporation bank vs PR shantharam : Hearsay evidence can be relied on in departmental proceedings if there is a corroborative material
[12/2, 10:24] Vinothpandian: 2018 (5) CTC 99 : Anurag mittal vs shaily mishra mittal SC : ” Absolute withdrawal is different from withdrawal after taking permission of court ( order 23 rule 1 CPC 1908 )
[12/2, 10:24] Vinothpandian: 2007(1) crimes 228 : devender singh vs state of haryana : demand of monetary assistance for domestic purposes not demand of dowry
[12/2, 10:24] Vinothpandian: 2007 (7) SCC 309 : MCD vs qimat Rai gupta : court should not add or delete words in statute
[12/3, 16:07] Vinothpandian: 2017 (5) CTC 369 : srinivasa rao BR vs Dr BR shankar : In any proceedings pleading and evidence must go hand in hand which includes oral as well as documentary evidence ( order 1 rule 2 CPC 1908 )
[12/3, 16:07] Vinothpandian: 2017 (5)CTC 430 ( DB ) : shinago holdings pvt ltd vs M Ethiraj : Principles laid down under order 38 rule 5 CPC would apply to application under section 9 of the arbitration and coincilation act in case for attachment before judgement
[12/3, 16:07] Vinothpandian: 2013 (5) SCC 277 : Deepak Agarwal vs keshav kaushik : An advocates two fold duty reads as follows a) to act as an officer of the court and b) to protect the interest of his client and pursue case briefed to him to the best of his ability
[12/3, 16:07] Vinothpandian: 2017 (5) CTC 673 : jegadammal vs munusamy : Held re – appreciation of evidence not permissible in second appeal , interference warranted only on question of law or if court below placed onus on wrong party ( sec 100 CPC 1908 )
[12/3, 16:07] Vinothpandian: 2013 (6) CTC 683 : standard chartered bank vs V noble kumar : In a section 14 SARFASI act proceedings , court cannot consider legal niceties of loan transaction between borrower and secured creditor , court should record its satisfaction for passing order granting assistance of court to take possession of secured assets
[12/5, 13:50] Vinothpandian: 2002 (3) RCR ( criminal ) 43 ( DB ) : uniplas india ltd vs state : mere breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention was alleged right at the beginining of transaction
[12/5, 13:50] Vinothpandian: 2013 ( 1) All India criminal LR 322 : Anoop kumar vs state of haryana : In a dowry related matters , by mere conjectures and implications relations of husband side cannot be held to be involved for offences relating to demand of dowry
[12/5, 13:50] Vinothpandian: 2017 (1) DRTC 234 : Anjana vs AP vardhaman ( mahila ) cooperative bank ltd : supreme court on many occasions cautioned ” forum shopping ” ought not too be encouraged
[12/5, 13:50] Vinothpandian: 2014 (4) SCC 186 : SVA steel.Re- rolling mills ltd & others vs state of kerala : Held provisions of section 22 – B electricity act 1910 are not applicable where state had given an assurance with regard to uninterrupted supply of electricity to consumers
[12/5, 13:50] Vinothpandian: 2011 (7) SCC 69 : Amar singh vs union of india : Held litigants must observe total clarity and candour in their pleadings especially when it contains a prayer for injunction ( order 39 rule 1 & 2 CPC 1908 )
[12/6, 10:46] Vinothpandian: 2017 (2) Acquittal 669 ( jhar ): Binay kumar sinha vs state of jharkhand : section 313 of code of criminal procedure is a very important provision of law which has to be followed strictly , prosecution cannot utilize circumstances which appears against accused if not explained to him under section 313 of code of criminal procedure
[12/6, 11:00] Vinothpandian: AIR 1960 punj 307 : kishan singh vs state of punjab : The general policy of the law is to allow bail rather than refuse it and bail should not be witheld as a measure of punishment or for the purpose of putting obstacles in the way of defence ( sec 436 CRPC )
[12/6, 15:50] Vinothpandian: 2011 (4) All India criminal LR 83 : manwinder singh vs state of punjab ; Held discretionary relief of anticipatory bail can be granted to the accused when they come to court with clean hands , he who seeks equity must come with clean hands
[12/6, 15:50] Vinothpandian: 2003 (2) SCC 473 : state of karnataka vs shariff : There was no requirement of law that a dying declaration must necessarily be made before a magistrate
[12/6, 15:50] 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 ( sec 439 (2) CRPC 1973 )
[12/6, 15:50] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) DRTC 836 : Hdfc bank ltd vs prestige educational trust : section 13(4) of SARFASI act not conferred any power on secured creditor to take possession of any assets other than secured assets
[12/6, 15:50] Vinothpandian: 2015 (1) crimes 13 : sunita kachwaha vs Anil kachwaha : In a matrimonial proceeding , ” inability to maintain is a pre- condition for grant of maintenance to wife
[12/6, 15:50] Vinothpandian: 2013 (4) All India criminal LR ( DB ) 456 : RE ketabul SK : mere failure to disclose pendency of a bail application before a superior court is not a relevant ground for cancellation of bail
[12/6, 15:50] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) SCC ( cri ) 953 : Alister antony pareira vs state of maharastra : Rash or negligent driving on a public road with the knowledge of the dangerous character and the likely effect of the act and resulting in death may fall in the category of culpable homicide not amounting to murder
[12/7, 14:40] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) DRTC 673 : K padma vs K Ramachandran & others : Property attached in favour of bank earlier to alleged agreement for sale , provisions of sec 64 of CPC not applicable
[12/7, 14:40] Vinothpandian: 2016 (1) SCC ( cri ) 544 : N sunkanna vs state of Andhra pradesh : In an illegal gratification case mere possession and recovery of currency notes from accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offences
[12/7, 14:40] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC 609 SC : Metro exporters p ltd & another vs state bank of india : An international funds transfer may be subject to more than one law , an international funds transfer may be either onshore where either payers bank or payees bank is located in country of currency transfer , and offshore where neither bank is located in country of currency of transfer
[12/7, 14:40] Vinothpandian: 2014 (3) SCC 1 : shatrughan chauhan vs union of india : Execution of death sentence must be in consonance with constitutional mandate and not in violation of constitutional principles
[12/7, 14:40] Vinothpandian: 2019 (6) CTC 442 : Nissan motors corporate office vs S giri prasad : summoning of an accused in a criminal case a serious matter , summoning order must reflect about application of mind to facts of case and law applicable thereto , when magistrate did not record basis of taking cognizance and simply ordered to issue summons to accused , complaint held liable to be quashed
[12/7, 14:40] Vinothpandian: 2008 (2) SCC 561 : onkar nath mishra vs state ( NCT of delhi ) : Provisions of sec 498 A IPC should not be used as a device to achieve oblique motive
[12/8, 15:36] Vinothpandian: 2014 (3) CTC 473 : jayalakshmi anmal vs kaliaperumal : In a civil proceedings , pure question of law alone can be raised in the subsequent proceedings without pleadings in the written statement , question of law not raised in pleading can be entertained
[12/8, 15:36] Vinothpandian: 2017 (1) CTC 198 : Thirumalai S vs S Govindarajan : unregistered partition deed cannot be admitted in evidence even for collateral purpose
[12/8, 15:36] Vinothpandian: 2016 (1) CTC 335 SC : northern Railway vs pioneer publicity corp pvt ltd : Held sec 34 (3) of arbitration and coincilation act has no application in re – filing petition but only applies to initial filing of objection
[12/8, 15:36] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) SCC 10 : Prithipal singh vs state of punjab : For offences under IPC , torture is not permissible whether it occurs during investigation , interrogation or otherwise
[12/9, 11:03] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) DRTC 841 : K sami vs branch manager , bank of india : mere decision.of financial institution.to approach magistrate under sec 14 would also constitute a measure under sec 13 (4) of the SARFASI act
[12/9, 11:03] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) DRTC 86 : Union bank of india vs Rajendra wadhwa & others : As per rule 8(2) of the security interest rules possession notice is to be published in leading newspapers not later than seven days from date of taking possession
[12/9, 11:03] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) DRTC 525 : Bank of baroda vs Ranjan chetia : suit in question involving allegations of fraud against defendants before DRT , held allegations can be tried by civil court only , not by DRT which has no power to pass decree but can only issue recovery certificates
[12/9, 11:03] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC 27 SC : mathew varghese vs Amrita kumari : section 13 (8) engrafted in SARFASI act primarily with a view to protect right of a borrower , such a ownership right being a constitutional right protected under art 300 A of the constitution
[12/9, 11:03] 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
[12/9, 11:03] Vinothpandian: 2014 (4) CCC 99 : Rajal @ suman vs state of Rajasthan : female child despite gaining majority is entitled to receive maintainence from her father till date of her marriage ( sec 125 CRPC 1973 )
[12/9, 11:03] Vinothpandian: 2017 (2) DRTC 100 : Assistant commissioner ( CT ) Anna salai 111 Assessment circle vs indian overseas bank ; financial institutions being secured creditors would have priority of charge over mortgaged property in regard to tax another dues ( sec 31 – B SARFASI act )
[12/10, 22:09] Vinothpandian: 2017 (2) CTC 241 : chinnathambi @ subramani vs state , tiruppur district : filing of report that crime is undetectable cannot be construed that investigation has been completed , report of police about undetectable crime does not terminate investigation ( sec 173 ( 2) CRPC 1973 )
[12/10, 22:10] Vinothpandian: 2017 (5) CTC 532 : selvan C vs district collector , kanyakumari district : with regard to departmental proceedings as against an employee , employee once regularised can be terminated only after issuing appropriate show cause notice , framing charges and conducting enquiry
[12/10, 22:10] Vinothpandian: 2017 (5) CTC 369 : srinivasa rao BR vs Dr BR shankar : In any proceedings pleading and evidence must go hand in hand which includes oral as well as documentary evidence ( order 1 rule 2 CPC 1908 )
[12/10, 22:10] Vinothpandian: 2017 (5) CTC 673 : jegadammal vs munusamy : Held re – appreciation of evidence not permissible in second appeal , interference warranted only on question of law or if court below placed onus on wrong party ( sec 100 CPC 1908 )
[12/10, 22:10] Vinothpandian: 2017 (6) CTC 38 SC : Alka chandewar vs shamshul ishrar khan SC : orders of arbitral tribunal are deemed to be orders of court for all purposes , such orders are enforceable under civil procedure code 1908 in same manner as orders of court
[12/12, 12:17] Vinothpandian: Supreme court : suo – motu contempt petition ( civil ) no 3 of 2021 dated 3 – 11 – 2022 : In Re : Perry kansagra – contemnor : contempt of court regarding willful disobedience of order of custody of child , simple imprisonment for term of six months each for civil and criminal contempt imposed along with hefty fine upon father