Law tips today Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC 1 SC : Harshad govardhan sondagar vs IARC ltd : A lease of secured asset made by borrower after he receives notice under sec 13 (2) of SARFASI act from secured creditor intending to enforce that secured asset will not be valid lease [10/14, 10:23] Vinothpandian: 2013 (2) DRTC 35 : Devis ispat ltd vs

[10/14, 10:23] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC 1 SC : Harshad govardhan sondagar vs IARC ltd : A lease of secured asset made by borrower after he receives notice under sec 13 (2) of SARFASI act from secured creditor intending to enforce that secured asset will not be valid lease
[10/14, 10:23] Vinothpandian: 2013 (2) DRTC 35 : Devis ispat ltd vs state bank of india : issues relating to validity of decision of declaring an account as non – performing asset essentially relates to disputed question of facts and accounting , in this regard writ jurisdiction is neither permissible nor advisable in law ( sec 13 ( 3- A ) SARFASI act )
[10/14, 10:23] Vinothpandian: 2013 (2) DRTC 114 : Nippo foods vs state of punjab : With regard suit for recovery of bank dues , non – communication of reasons within seven days for statutory notice issued , borrower not suffered any prejudice for not communicating reasons within seven days , no penal consequences contemplated , in absence of any prejudice and fact that such provision being only directory , bank can continue with proceeding under the act ( sec 13( 3- A SARFASI act )
[10/14, 10:23] Vinothpandian: Supreme court : criminal appeal no 1209 of 2021 dated 21- 10-2021 : Absconder / proclaimed offender not entitled to relief of anticipatory bail
[10/14, 10:23] Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) DRTC 335 SC : Ram kishun & others vs state of UP : In a recovery proceedings there must be application of mind by authority concerned while approving / accepting report of approved valuer and fixing reserve price , failure to do so would amount to material irregularity and ultimately vitiate subsequent proceedings
[10/14, 10:23] Vinothpandian: 2010 (2) SCC 654 : Athar hussain vs syed siraj ahmed : In a matrimonial proceedings preference of child aged about 10 to 11 years old not to be overlooked while deciding interim custody of children
[10/14, 10:23] Vinothpandian: 2017 (2) CCC 135 SC : Ajit sinh Arjunsinh gohil vs bar council of gujarat : complaint made by a litigant has to follow a definite procedure , required to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of one year ( sec 36 B Advocates act 1961 )
[10/14, 10:23] Vinothpandian: 2019 (1) Bankmann 89 : shivani (sic shivangi ) and another vs Anuj shrikant taberewala : It is not really necessary that a director or a partner cannot be fastened with vicarious liability unless he was in charge of and was responsible to the firm for conduct of business of firm , a bald cursory statement in the complaint is impermissible ( sec 141 NI act )