[02/09, 15:09] Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) CTC 294 : SCG contracts india pvt ltd vs Ks chamankar infrastructure pvt ltd : with regard to resjudicata , when earlier orders were rendered under erroneous application interpreation of law of statutory prohibition , res judicata held inapplicable ( sec 11 CPC 1908 )[02/09, 15:09] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC 274 : deepti trading co rep by its proprietor vs authorised officer ICICI bank ltd : once tribunal found that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the SARFASI application , it is not empowered to pass any order touching upon merits of case ( sec 13 (2) & 13(4) SARFASI act )[02/09, 15:09] Vinothpandian: 2015 (1) DRTC 512 : Punjab national bank vs Rishika & others : civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain suit and restrain bank from alienating property for making recovery under section 13 (4) of the SARFASI act , jurisdiction of civil court in respect of measures taken under sec 13(4) of the SARFASI act expressly barred[02/09, 15:09] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC 758 : state bank of india vs nivrutti haribhau tupe & another : Name sake appeal before registry without attending same for year lead to wasting litigants time , matter protracted by bank itself for obvious reasons , cost of Rs 10000 imposed on bank , appeal dismissed ( DRAT RDDBFI act 1993 sec 20)[02/09, 15:09] Vinothpandian: 2016 (2) DRTC 128 : state bank of india vs veetee fine foods ltd : In a proceeding before DRT , castigating of bank officials and passing disparaging remarks need to be avoided , principles of public accountability made applicable with all its vigour , any use of disparaging remarks acts contrary to rule of natural justice
[02/09, 15:09] Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) CTC 294 : SCG contracts india pvt ltd vs Ks chamankar infrastructure pvt ltd : with regard to resjudicata , when earlier orders were rendered under erroneous application interpreation of law of statutory prohibition , res judicata held inapplicable ( sec 11 CPC 1908 )
[02/09, 15:09] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC 274 : deepti trading co rep by its proprietor vs authorised officer ICICI bank ltd : once tribunal found that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the SARFASI application , it is not empowered to pass any order touching upon merits of case ( sec 13 (2) & 13(4) SARFASI act )
[02/09, 15:09] Vinothpandian: 2015 (1) DRTC 512 : Punjab national bank vs Rishika & others : civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain suit and restrain bank from alienating property for making recovery under section 13 (4) of the SARFASI act , jurisdiction of civil court in respect of measures taken under sec 13(4) of the SARFASI act expressly barred
[02/09, 15:09] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC 758 : state bank of india vs nivrutti haribhau tupe & another : Name sake appeal before registry without attending same for year lead to wasting litigants time , matter protracted by bank itself for obvious reasons , cost of Rs 10000 imposed on bank , appeal dismissed ( DRAT RDDBFI act 1993 sec 20)
[02/09, 15:09] Vinothpandian: 2016 (2) DRTC 128 : state bank of india vs veetee fine foods ltd : In a proceeding before DRT , castigating of bank officials and passing disparaging remarks need to be avoided , principles of public accountability made applicable with all its vigour , any use of disparaging remarks acts contrary to rule of natural justice
