Law tips vinothpandian mhc adv

[12/8/2021, 10:37] Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) SCC 196 ; Rasiklal manickchand dhariwal vs MSS food products : Held idea behind provision of order 18 rule 15 CPC is to obviate recording of evidence or re hearing of suit where a judge is prevented by death , transfer or other cause from concluding trial of a suit and to take suit forward from the stage predecessor judge left the matter
[12/8/2021, 10:38] Vinothpandian: 2012 (6) SCC 430 : A shanmugam vs Ariya kshatriya Rajakula vamsathu madalaya nandhavana : With regard to granting Ad interim injunction , held pleadings need to be critically examined by judicial officers or judges both before issuing ad interim injunction ( order 39 rule 1 & 2 CPC 1908 )
[12/8/2021, 14:00] Vinothpandian: 2019 CRILJ 3129 : manju devi vs state of Rajasthan : Age of a case by itself cannot be decisive of the matter when a prayer is made for examination of a material witness
[12/8/2021, 14:00] Vinothpandian: 2010 (13) SCC 657 : sunil kumar sambu dayal gupta vs state of maharastra : presumption of innocence is a human right , appellate court should not interfere with acquittal order passed by trial court merely because two views are possible in a given case
[12/9/2021, 14:03] Vinothpandian: 2013 (8) SCC 491 : UP power corporation ltd vs Anis ahmad : Held a complaint against assessment made by an assessing officer under sec 126 or against offences committed under sec 135 to 140 of electricity act 2003 is not maintainable before a consumer forum
[12/9/2021, 14:03] Vinothpandian: 2012 (5) SCC 488 : super cassettes industries ltd vs music broadcast pvt ltd : Held in matters under order 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC and sec 151 CPC , an interim relief granting final relief should be given after exercise of great caution and in rare and exceptional cases
[12/9/2021, 14:11] Vinothpandian: 2014 (3) SCC 595 : state bank of india vs gracure pharmaceuticals ltd : held object of order 2 rule 2 CPC is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and not to vex parties over and again in a litigative process
[12/9/2021, 14:11] Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) SCC 300 : J samuel vs Gattu mahesh : Held plea that relief sought by way of amendment was barred by time is to be considered in the light of facts and circumstances of each case ( order 6 rule 17 CPC 1908 )
[12/10/2021, 09:27] Vinothpandian: Supreme court : SLP no 12369 of 2021 dated 8- 12- 2021 Uttar Pradesh state road transport corporation vs Gajadhar nath : With regard to removal from service of an employee , initiation of criminal proceedings against employee or not initiating proceedings has no bearing to prove misconduct in departmental proceedings
[12/10/2021, 09:27] Vinothpandian: Supreme court : civil appeal no 1658 of 2010 dated 30-11-2021 Bombay hospital & medical research centre vs Asha jaiswal : Non availability of operation theatres when patient being taken for surgery not medical negligence on part of hospital
[12/10/2021, 10:04] Vinothpandian: Supreme court: civil appeal no 6374 of 2021 dated 1- 12- 2021 neha tyagi vs lieutenant colonel deepak tyagi : In a matrimonial proceedings pertaining to maintenance, liability and responsibility of father to maintain child continues till children attaining age of majority
[12/10/2021, 10:04] Vinothpandian: Supreme court : civil appeal no 6707 of 2019 dated 1-12-2021 committee of creditors of Amtek auto ltd through corporation bank vs dinakar T venkatsubramanian : In an IBC proceedings ( insolvency & bankruptcy) , entire resolution process has to be completed within period stipulated under section 12 of IBC and any deviation would defeat object and purpose of providing such time limit
[12/11/2021, 10:33] Vinothpandian: 2015 (4) SCC 164 ; Union of india vs SN maity : In matters pertaining to departmental proceedings , merely because words ” until further orders ” are used would not confer allowance on employer to act with caprice
[12/11/2021, 10:33] Vinothpandian: 2018 (2) MWN ( cri ) 504 : satpal singh vs state of punjab : satisfaction of court for granting protection under section 438 CRPC 1973 different from one under section 439 CRPC 1973
[12/11/2021, 10:33] Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) CTC 142 : Balambal vs D Prakash : High court in review cannot sit in appeal over its order and rehear issues ( order 47 rule 1 CPC 1908 )
[12/13/2021, 09:50] Vinothpandian: Supreme court: krishnan & another vs state rep by deputy superintendent of police criminal appeal no 1511 of 2021 dated 29- 11- 2021 : In criminal appeals , exparte enhancement of sentence illegal , in absence of counsels appearing high court should appoint Amicus curiae
[12/13/2021, 09:50] Vinothpandian: Supreme court: civil appeal no 6947 of 2021 dated 23-11- 2021 Uttar Pradesh forest corporation lucknow vs vijay kumar yadav : In disciplinary proceedings , once charge of causing loss proved by enquiry officer , punishment for order for recovery of such loss is mandatory
[12/13/2021, 09:50] Vinothpandian: Supreme court : civil appeal no 6994 of 2021 dated 1- 12 – 2021 Dr G sadasivan nair vs cochin university of science and technology : With regard to decision on pension payments of an employee , pension payable to employee on retirement shall be determined on rules existing at time of retirement
[12/14/2021, 13:22] Vinothpandian: 2007 (5) SCC 103 : Raghu lakshminarayanan vs M / S fine tubes : A business concern is not a company within the meaning of sec 141 of NI act
[12/14/2021, 13:22] Vinothpandian: 2007 (1) crimes 228 : Devender singh vs state of haryana : In dowry death cases , it has been held that demand of monetary assistance for domestic purposes not demand of dowry
[12/14/2021, 13:22] Vinothpandian: 2000 (5) SCC 207 : Kans Raj vs state of punjab : In dowry death cases it has been observed there is a tendency in cases of 498 IPC and 304 B IPC to rope in a large number of in – laws of the victims wife and not only the husband
[12/15/2021, 15:36] Vinothpandian: 2018 (1) SCC (cri) 390 : Asfaq vs state of Rajasthan : By committing a crime a person does not ceases to be a human being , for a prisoner all fundamental rights are an enforceable reality though restricted by the fact of imprisonment
[12/15/2021, 15:36] Vinothpandian: 2018 CRILJ : fakrul islam vs state of Assam : The plea of juvenility can be raised by accused at any stage of the proceedings even after the disposal of case and said plea can be raised before any court ( juvenile justice act section 7- A )
[12/15/2021, 15:36] Vinothpandian: 2018 CRI LJ 1110 : Kavitha G pillai vs joint director , directorate of enforcement : The presumption of innocence and the right to silence are cognate concepts , normally courts cannot be encouraged to hold any suspect guilty merely because he refused to respond to question put up by police or court
[12/15/2021, 15:42] Vinothpandian: 1996 (4) SCC 659 : state of maharastra vs som nath thapa : To establish a charge of conspiracy knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary
[12/16/2021, 14:25] Vinothpandian: 2006 (5) SCC 736 : state of chattisgarh vs lekhram : Register maintained in a school is admissible evidence to prove the date of birth of the person concerned in terms of sec 35 of indian evidence act
[12/16/2021, 14:25] Vinothpandian: 2011 (10) SCC 445 : sadhwi pragyna singh thakur vs state of maharastra : Rights under article 22 (2) of constitution of india is available only against illegal detention by police and it does not operate against judicial order
[12/16/2021, 14:25] Vinothpandian: 2016 (8) SCC 335 : mahipal singh Rana vs state of uttar pradesh : where the bar council fails to take action inspite of reference made to it , the court can exercise suo motu powers for punishing contemnor for professional misconduct
[12/16/2021, 14:45] Vinothpandian: 2011 (8) SCC 434 : state of UP vs Alok verma : merely because a person is in financial crises does not mean that he is at liberty to commit ghastly and gruesome murders
[12/17/2021, 11:07] Vinothpandian: 2011 (8) SCC 679 : Bakshi dev Raj & another vs sudhir kumar : With regard to seeking instructions by counsels from parties , it is always desirable to get instructions in writing ( order 3 rule 1 CPC 1908 )
[12/17/2021, 11:07] Vinothpandian: 2011 (12) SCC 658 : vimleshwar nagappa shet vs Noor ahmad sheriff : A concession made by a counsel on a question of fact held is binding on the client , but if it is on a question of law it is not binding ( order 12 rule 6 CPC 1908 )
[12/17/2021, 11:07] Vinothpandian: 2011 (3) SCC 545 : Parimal vs veena @ bharti : Held substituted service is meant to be resorted to serve notice at address known to parties where party had been residing last ( order 5 rule 20 CPC 1908 )
[12/18/2021, 09:38] Vinothpandian: AIR 1984 SC 1233 : Punjab singh vs state of haryana : In a criminal trial proceedings , when there is inconsistency between medical evidence and direct testimony , if the direct evidence is satisfactory , the same cannot be rejected on hypothetical medical evidence
[12/18/2021, 09:38] Vinothpandian: 1985 (4) SCC 80 : Pattipati venkaiah vs state of Andhra pradesh : medical science is not yet so perfect so to determine the exact time of death , nor can be the same be determined in a computerised or mathematical fashion so as to accurate to the last second
[12/18/2021, 10:29] Vinothpandian: 2013 (2) DRTC 114 : Nippo foods vs state of punjab & others : In a suit for recovery of bank dues , liability of guarantor dependent upon liability of borrower , principal borrower cannot be permitted to say that amount should be recovered from guarantor and not from principal borrower
[12/18/2021, 11:01] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) DRTC 836 : Hdfc bank ltd vs prestige educational trust : section 13(4) of SARFASI act not conferred any power on secured creditor to take possession of any assets other than secured assets
[12/20/2021, 09:46] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) DRTC 302 : Bank of baroda vs sarvottam namkin pvt ltd & others : In DRT recovery suits though court has discretion to award interest other than contractual rate of interest , it should be supported with reasons ( sec 20 RDDBFI act 1993 )
[12/20/2021, 09:46] 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
[12/20/2021, 14:28] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC 420 : Midex global pvt ltd vs state bank of india : Regarding default of bank loans , inclusion of name of borrower in list of wilful defaulter decision on classification of wilful defaulter should be well documented and supported by requisite evidence , decision should clearly spell out reason for which borrower was declared as wilful defaulter
[12/20/2021, 14:41] 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 )
[12/21/2021, 15:10] Vinothpandian: 2006 (3) SCC ( cri ) 30 : MS narayana menon @ mani vs state of kerala : If a cheque is issued for security or for any purpose other than a discharge of a debt or liability , penal provisions of sec 138 , negotiable instruments act not attracted
[12/21/2021, 15:23] Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) scale 698 : Bir singh vs mukesh kumar : Even a blank cheque leaf voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused towards some payment would attract presumption under section 139 of NI act in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt
[12/21/2021, 15:23] Vinothpandian: AIR 2010 SC 2835 : central bank of india vs Asian global ltd : merely being a director of a company would not make a person liable for an offence under sec 138 NI act that may have been committed by company
[12/21/2021, 15:37] Vinothpandian: 2013 (5) SCC 741 : Natasha singh vs CBI : An application filed under sec 311 of CRPC must be allowed if fresh evidence is being produced to facilitate a just decision
[12/22/2021, 15:48] Vinothpandian: 2013 CRI LJ 2973 : Prem kaur vs state of punjab : In a judgement absence of sound reasons is not a mere irregularity but a patent illegality
[12/22/2021, 15:48] Vinothpandian: 2015(1) SCC 788 : PS meherhomji vs KT vijay kumar : judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment
[12/22/2021, 15:48] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) SCC 476 : Union of india vs Ramesh gandhi : If a judgement is obtained by playing fraud on court is considered to be nullity in the eye of law
[12/22/2021, 15:48] Vinothpandian: 2008 (1) SCC 683 : divisional manager , Aravali golf club vs chander hass : If there is law judges can certainly enforce it but judges cannot create law and seek to enforce it
[12/23/2021, 14:05] Vinothpandian: 2013 (6) SCC 595 : Kashmiri lal vs state of haryana : If testimony of police officer is found to be reliable and trustworthy , court can definitely act upon the same
[12/23/2021, 14:05] Vinothpandian: 2018 (2) crimes 225 : Asian resurfacing of road agency pvt ltd : order framing charges is not purely an interlocutory order nor a final order
[12/23/2021, 14:10] Vinothpandian: 2012 (4) SCC 307 : kanwar singh saini vs high court of delhi : Executing court does not have power to go beyond the decree , no objection can be raised in execution in absence of any challenge to decree
[12/23/2021, 14:10] Vinothpandian: 2012 (6) SCC 369 : chandra kr chopra vs UOI : mere suspicion or apprehension is not good enough to entertain a plea of bias
[12/24/2021, 11:51] Vinothpandian: 2013 CRILJ 3140 : sujit biswas vs state of Assam : circumstances which are not put to accused in his examination under sec 313 of CRPC cannot be used against him and must be excluded from consideration
[12/24/2021, 11:51] Vinothpandian: 2000 (8) SCC 740 : Basavaraj R patil vs state of karnataka : Provisions of sec 313 of CRPC are not meant to nail the accused to his disadvantage but are meant for his benefit
[12/24/2021, 11:56] 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
[12/24/2021, 12:00] Vinothpandian: 2015 (1) SCC 788 : PS meherhomji vs KT vijay kumar : judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment
[12/27/2021, 10:14] Vinothpandian: 2006 (2) SCC 578 : seema ( smt ) vs Ashwani kumar ; All marriages are required to be compulsorily registered
[12/27/2021, 10:14] 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
[12/27/2021, 10:21] Vinothpandian: 2018 (7) SCC 192 : shakthi vahini vs union of india : Right to choose life partner is a fundamental right , consent of family or community or clan is not necessary once two adult indivduals agree to enter into a wedlock
[12/27/2021, 10:21] Vinothpandian: 2010 (7) SCC 667 : preeti gupta vs state of jharkhand : courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with complaints under section 498 A of IPC and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases
[12/29/2021, 11:08] 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
[12/29/2021, 11:08] Vinothpandian: 2013 (14) SCC 127 : Arun kumar yadav vs state of UP through dist judge : sanctity of law which is sustained through dignity of courts cannot be marred by errant behaviour by any counsel or litigant , even a judge is required to maintain decorum and dignity of court
[12/29/2021, 11:20] Vinothpandian: 1974 (1) SCC 345 : Pooran mal vs director of inspection ( investigation ) : evidence obtained on an illegal search cannot be excluded
[12/29/2021, 11:20] Vinothpandian: 2018 (1) crimes 95 : latesh @ dadu baburao karlekar vs state of maharastra : merely because names of accused are not stated and their names are not specified in the FIR cannot be ground to doubt contents of FIR , case of prosecution cannot be thrown out on this count
[12/30/2021, 10:13] Vinothpandian: 2014 (1) SCC 1 : suresh kumar koushal vs Naz foundation : High court and supreme court of india are empowered to declare as void any law whether enacted prior to the enactment of the constitution or after
[12/30/2021, 10:13] Vinothpandian: 2012 (4) SCC 307 : kanwar singh saini vs high court of delhi : court cannot derive apart from the statute
[12/30/2021, 10:13] Vinothpandian: 2006 (3) SCC 276 : state of UP vs sheo shanker srivastava : judicial review may require full blown merit judgement
[12/30/2021, 10:19] Vinothpandian: 2011 (2) SCC 123 : mangesh vs state of maharastra : With regard to a murder charge , when a person loses his sense he may act violently and that by itself may not be ground to be considered against him while determining the nature of offence
[12/30/2021, 10:19] Vinothpandian: 2014 (5) SCC 409 : Ex Army mens protection services pvt ltd vs union of india : once the state is of the stand that issue involves national security , court shall not disclose the reasons to affected party
[12/31/2021, 11:04] Vinothpandian: 2012 (4) SCC 307 : kanwar singh saini vs high court of delhi : court cannot derive apart from the statute
[12/31/2021, 11:04] Vinothpandian: 2014 (5) SCC 409 : Ex Army mens protection services pvt ltd vs union of india : once the state is of the stand that issue involves national security , court shall not disclose the reasons to affected party
[12/31/2021, 11:04] Vinothpandian: 2011 (2) SCC 123 : mangesh vs state of maharastra : With regard to a murder charge , when a person loses his sense he may act violently and that by itself may not be ground to be considered against him while determining the nature of offence
[12/31/2021, 11:08] Vinothpandian: AIR 2019 SC 655 : state rep by drugs inspector vs manimaran : carbon copies of documents can be taken into consideration as primary evidence
[1/3, 13:48] Vinothpandian: AIR 1997 SC 11 : DK Basa vs state of west bengal : section 330 of indian penal code directly makes torture during interrogation and investigation punishable
[1/3, 13:48] Vinothpandian: 2019 (3) CTC 564 : Gnana ArulmonibR vs RS maharajan: Held conduct of plaintiff most important factor for grant of equitable relief of specific performance ( section 16 (c) specific relief act 1963 )
[1/3, 13:55] Vinothpandian: AIR 1980 SC 791 : state of UP vs Ram babu mishra : A magistrate has no power either under section 3 of evidence act or under section 5 of identification of prisoners act to direct the accused to give specimen writing during the investigation of the case for anticipated comparison
[1/3, 14:10] Vinothpandian: AIR 1986 SC 467 : Attorney general of india vs lachhma devi : Execution of death sentence by hanging in the public it is a barbaric and violative of article 21 of the constitution of india
[1/3, 15:00] Vinothpandian: 2017 (3) SCC 330 : Ajay singh vs state of chattisgarh : judgement announced but not available records can never be a judgement
[1/3, 15:00] Vinothpandian: 2008 (3) SCC 509 : jagtamba devi vs Hem Ram : In a judgement right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system , reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to matter before court and absence of reasons renders the judgement unsustainable
[1/3, 15:03] Vinothpandian: 2011 (8) SCC 434 : state of UP vs Alok verma : merely because a person is in financial crises does not mean that he is at liberty to commit ghastly and gruesome murders
[1/3, 15:07] Vinothpandian: 2015 (1) crimes 1 AG vs shiv kumar yadav : Recall of witnesses is not a matter of course and discretion given to the court , mere change of counsel cannot be ground to recall witnessess
[1/5, 09:49] Vinothpandian: 2001 (9) SCC 417 : sunil bajaj vs state of MP : In a dowry harassment proceedings , conviction cannot be on the basis of vague and inconsistent and generic allegation
[1/5, 09:49] Vinothpandian: 2008 (2) SCC 561 : onkar nath mishra vs state ( NCT of delhi ) : provisions of section 498 A IPC should not be used as a device to achieve oblique motive
[1/5, 09:55] Vinothpandian: AIR 1999 SC 287 : mahabir prasad singh vs jacks aviation pvt ltd : It is solemn duty of every court to proceed with judicial function during court hours and no court should yield to pressure tactics or boycott calls or any kind of browbeating
[1/5, 09:59] Vinothpandian: 2002 (10) SCC 56 : sharawan bhadaji bhirad vs state of maharastra : when a statement is recorded as a dying declaration and victim survives , such statement need not stand strict scrutiny of a dying declaration , but may be treated as a statement under section 164 CRPC
[1/6, 09:28] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) DRTC 836 : HDFC bank ltd vs prestige educational trust : section 13(4) of SARFASI act not conferred any power on secured creditor to take possession of any assets other than secured assets , if attempted its ultravires to provisions of act
[1/6, 09:28] Vinothpandian: 2016 (2) DRTC 333 : kamal kumar bhatu vs authorised officer allahabad bank : With regard to property to be sold under SARFASI act under auction , deposit of 10% as earnest money enabling a person to participate in bid process is not an amount towards sale price
[1/6, 09:34] Vinothpandian: 2015 (1) DRTC 721 : veena textiles ltd & another vs authorised officer IFCI ltd : writ petition against order made under section 14(3) of SARFASI act by magistrate held maintainable