You may also like...
-
[26/09, 12:10] Vinothpandian: 2020(1) CTC 799 : latha Ilangovan vs usha Rajaram : art 227 constitution of india : held recording reasons for granting ex parte interim order mandatory and not mere formailty ,failure to give such reasons amounts to denial of justice[26/09, 12:10] Vinothpandian: 2020(1) CTC 515 : evidence act 1872 sec 45 : court can accept or reject expert opinion ,while rejecting opinion of expert ,especially one who deposed in court ,court must give cogent and convincing reason for such rejection[26/09, 12:10] 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[26/09, 12:10] 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[26/09, 12:10] 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
by Sekar Reporter · Published September 26, 2024
-
[03/09, 10:27] Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) DRTC 351 : Gulshan Rai jain & others vs DRAT Allahabad ; DRT / DRAT cannot keep appeal pending for indefinite period under garb of interim orders , non – disposal of appeal within statutory period shall frustrate very object of statute ( SARFASI act )[03/09, 10:27] Vinothpandian: AIR 2018 SC 4647 : Achpal @ Ramswaroop vs state of Rajasthan : With regard to extension of period for completing investigation , no court could either directly or indirectly extend such period , mere recording of submission of public prosecutor could not be taken to be an order granting extension[03/09, 10:27] Vinothpandian: AIR 2018 SC 5128 : kamala vs MR mohan kumar : unlike matrimonial proceedings where strict proof of marriage is essential , in the proceedings under section 125 of CRPC , such strict standard of proof is not necessary as it is summary in nature meant to prevent vagrancy[03/09, 10:27] Vinothpandian: 2005 (2) crimes 230 : Rajendra sail vs madhya pradesh high court bar association : Judgements of courts are public documents and can be commented upon , analyzed and criticized , but it has to be in dignified manner without attributing motives
by Sekar Reporter · Published September 3, 2024
-