[30/09, 09:53] Vinothpandian: 2019 (5) CTC 914 : Goomo orbit corporate & leisure travels pvt ltd vs GI retail pvt ltd : In a plaint , party relying on misrepresentation , fraud , breach of trust wilful.default or any undue influence must plead all particulars including dates and items in a suit for defamation.[30/09, 09:53] Vinothpandian: 2014 (1) DRTC 1693 : Alex kuruvilla vs oriental bank of commerce : SARFASI act being a special act and a code in itself to protect secured assets of bank , such assets has to be sold by modes provided under the security interest ( enforcement ) rules rule 8 and 9 , Rule 8 (8) permits sale by private treaty only with condition that private sale terms have to be by a written treaty and not an oral one[30/09, 09:53] 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 )[30/09, 09:53] Vinothpandian: 2016 (2) CTC 720 : Vijayakumar M vs The inspector general of registration : Regarding societies registration act , held district registrar is not empowered to adjudicate upon rival claims , in this case district registrar conducted enquiry and adjudicated dispute relating to affairs of society , purpose of enquiry under the societies registration act is only to maintain correct records ( Tamil nadu societies registration act 1975 section 36 )[30/09, 09:53] 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
[30/09, 09:53] Vinothpandian: 2019 (5) CTC 914 : Goomo orbit corporate & leisure travels pvt ltd vs GI retail pvt ltd : In a plaint , party relying on misrepresentation , fraud , breach of trust wilful.default or any undue influence must plead all particulars including dates and items in a suit for defamation.
[30/09, 09:53] Vinothpandian: 2014 (1) DRTC 1693 : Alex kuruvilla vs oriental bank of commerce : SARFASI act being a special act and a code in itself to protect secured assets of bank , such assets has to be sold by modes provided under the security interest ( enforcement ) rules rule 8 and 9 , Rule 8 (8) permits sale by private treaty only with condition that private sale terms have to be by a written treaty and not an oral one
[30/09, 09:53] 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 )
[30/09, 09:53] Vinothpandian: 2016 (2) CTC 720 : Vijayakumar M vs The inspector general of registration : Regarding societies registration act , held district registrar is not empowered to adjudicate upon rival claims , in this case district registrar conducted enquiry and adjudicated dispute relating to affairs of society , purpose of enquiry under the societies registration act is only to maintain correct records ( Tamil nadu societies registration act 1975 section 36 )
[30/09, 09:53] 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
