law tips Vinothpandian: 2019 (6) CTC 584 : UC surendranath vs Mamballys bakery : Held wilful disobedience being in nature of criminal liability must be proved to satisfaction of court that disobedience was not mere disobedience but wilful disobedience , disobedience ” not wilful does not warrant invoking order 39 rule 2 – A CPC 1908 [9/1, 14:55] Vinothpandian: 2008 (2) SCC ( cri ) 166 : krishna janardhan bhat vs dattatraya G Hegde : Existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumtion under sec 139 of NI act

[9/1, 14:55] Vinothpandian: 2019 (6) CTC 584 : UC surendranath vs Mamballys bakery : Held wilful disobedience being in nature of criminal liability must be proved to satisfaction of court that disobedience was not mere disobedience but wilful disobedience , disobedience ” not wilful does not warrant invoking order 39 rule 2 – A CPC 1908
[9/1, 14:55] Vinothpandian: 2008 (2) SCC ( cri ) 166 : krishna janardhan bhat vs dattatraya G Hegde : Existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumtion under sec 139 of NI act
[9/1, 14:55] Vinothpandian: 2013(1) DRTC 761 : Ratan kumar & others vs state bank of india : Any third party right created after issuance of notice under section 13(2) of SARFASI act has to be ignored
[9/1, 14:55] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC 426 : Madhuri devi vs dena bank : once objection is filed by the borrower against notice issued under section 13(2) of SARFASI act , bank is obliged to file reply to same under section 13 ( 3 – A) SARFASI act