Mhc advocate Vinothpandian: 2016 (3) CTC 241 : mukanchand bothra S vs vairamuthu ramaswamy ( DB ) : contempt petition filed at behest of private indivdual without consent of advocate general is not maintainable (

[8/3, 11:10] Vinothpandian: 2016 (3) CTC 241 : mukanchand bothra S vs vairamuthu ramaswamy ( DB ) : contempt petition filed at behest of private indivdual without consent of advocate general is not maintainable ( section 2(c) of contempt of courts act 1971 )
[8/3, 11:10] Vinothpandian: 2017 (6) CTC 187 : vijay singh vs shanti devi SC : once ex parte decree is set aside , parties would be relegated to position at which they were when ex parte decree was passed ( order 9 rule 13 CPC 1908 )
[8/3, 12:57] Vinothpandian: 2010 (11) SCC 520 : Harinarayan G Bajaj vs state of maharastra ; under section 244 of CRPC the accused has a right to cross examine the witnesses and in the matter of section 319 of CRPC when a new accused is summoned , he would have similar right to cross examine the witness examined during the enquiry afresh
[8/3, 12:57] Vinothpandian: 2000 (8) SCC 131 : PP unnikrishnan vs puttiyottil Alikutty : A police officer assaulting a person in lock up cannot claim that he did the act of assaulting in discharge of his duty
[8/3, 12:57] Vinothpandian: 2007 (9) SCC 721 : Appasaheb vs state of maharastra : mere demand made by the husband to his wife to seek Rs 1000 from her parents to meet domestic expenses would not by any stretch of imagination amount to demand of dowry
[8/3, 12:57] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) crimes 80 : mangat Ram vs state of haryana : failure of a married person to take his wife along with him to the place where he is working or posted would not amount to cruelty leading to abetement of committing suicide by wife
[8/3, 12:57] Vinothpandian: 2004 (8) SCC 774 : V Raja kumari vs P subbarama naidu : In a complaint under section 138 of NI act non – service of notice is not a ground for rejecting complaint even before it is numbered
[8/4, 10:55] Vinothpandian: 1989 (1) SCC 405 : Kuldip kaur vs surinder singh : In a criminal proceedings after awarding sentence and compensation , default sentence is a mode of enforcing recovery of amount imposed by way of compensation
[8/4, 10:55] Vinothpandian: 2014 (4) SCC 149.: state of Rajasthan vs shambhu kewat : crime against a society cannot be wiped of due to a compromise
[8/4, 14:36] Vinothpandian: 2008 (5) SCC 662 ; SK Alagh vs state of UP : Indian penal code does not contemplate any vicarious liability on a party not directly charged for commission of an offence except specifically provided there for
[8/4, 14:36] Vinothpandian: 2004 (5) SCC 729 : Inspector of police vs NMT joy immaculate : Admissibility of evidence or a piece of evidence has to be judged having regard to the provisions of evidence act
[8/4, 14:36] Vinothpandian: 2001 (4) SCC 667 : state of UP vs shambu nath singh : criminal justice cannot be allowed to be defeated solely on account of inaction or lapses of the court in adhering to the mandates of law
[8/5, 15:58] Vinothpandian: AIR 1991 SC 583 : Priyanka overseas p tld vs union of india : A party cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong
[8/5, 15:58] Vinothpandian: 1985 (2) SCC 35 : Rasikal vaghajibhai patel vs Ahmedabad municipal corporation : Person seeking relief under art 136 of the constitution.must come before court with clean hands
[8/5, 15:58] Vinothpandian: 2006 (6) SCC 94 : standard chartered bank vs Andhra bank financial services ltd : Held in a proceedings when both parties bonafides are in doubt , principles of equity is not applicable
[8/5, 16:04] Vinothpandian: 1984 (4) SCC 316 : chandra bansi singh vs state of bihar : supreme court cannot deny a relief to a party if he is entitled to it on equitable considerations though not under law , supreme court is not only a court of law but also a court of equity
[8/6, 12:33] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) CPJ 338 : Krishnan lal kalra vs Religare securities ltd : Regular trading in sale and purchase of shares is purely commercial activity and only motive is to earn profits , hence in the above matter consumer forum cannot consider complainant as a consumer
[8/6, 12:33] Vinothpandian: 2015 (3) CPR 160 : shankar biva pawar vs maharastra electricity supply co ltd : consumer forum have no jurisdiction to entertain a case pertaining to unauthorised use of electricity connection
[8/6, 12:33] Vinothpandian: 2016 (4) CPJ 28 : pooja pincha & another vs state bank of india : mortgage deed lost by bank , entire loan amount refunded , while original document is not available , loss of document of ownership is not a venial and trivial matter ,directed all cost of mortgage be borne by bank as well as cost imposed by the consumer forum
[8/6, 12:38] Vinothpandian: 2016 (2) CPR 151 : Dr srikar reddy & others vs srishti associates : consumer forum has held that a medical practioner would be liable only when his conduct fell below that of standards of a reasonably competent practioner in his field
[8/6, 12:44] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) CPR 36 : smt sujata vohra vs ISI escorts & others : consumer forum had held hospitals to be careful while issuing any document , correctness should be checked either by medical superintendent or by resident medical officer
[8/7, 10:17] Vinothpandian: 2021 (2) CTC 274 : mahalakshmi.vs district collector , virudhunagar district : Pertaining to pregnancy of minor girl , held though safety.and health of victim / minor is paramount , interest of unborn child to be considered , unborn child also a person , court must consider on facts if termination of pregnancy would be in best interest of unborn child
[8/7, 10:17] Vinothpandian: 2021 (2) CTC 497 : master ganesh R vs state of tamil nadu : Regarding challenging the validity of a judicial exam , powers of judicial review under art 226 limited
[8/7, 10:17] Vinothpandian: 2021 (1) CTC 389 : Director ( HR ) oil & natural gas corp ltd new delhi vs B uma : promotion or back wages for an employee cannot be denied when employee not terminated from service due to misconduct
[8/7, 10:24] Vinothpandian: 2021 (1) CTC 577 : Enkay visions p ltd vs doordarshan rep by its director general : Awarding interest in a money suit from the date of decree restricts the fruits of decree and defeats the interest of justice ( section 34 CPC 1908 )
[8/9, 11:10] Vinothpandian: 2021 (2) CTC 801 : state vs S Rajaram : wrong order in one case cannot be basis for compelling public authority to pass similar order in any other case ( art 14 constitution of india )
[8/9, 11:10] Vinothpandian: 2017 (3) CTC 23 : Duraisamy P vs state : Entry in register of births & deaths is not conclusive proof of date of birth / death ( Tamil nadu registration of births and deaths rules 1977 rule 10(3) )
[8/9, 15:05] Vinothpandian: 2016 (4) CTC 689 : deepti.Ahuja vs chief controlling revenue authority cum inspector general of Registration : Held mandate of statutory provisions cannot be supplemented nor overridden by executive / Administrative instructions
[8/9, 15:44] Vinothpandian: 2017 (2) CTC 667 : Ivy C da conceicao vs state of goa SC : Arbitrary action of minority institutions in selection and appointment related issues is subject to judicial review
[8/9, 15:51] 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.
[8/11, 14:08] Vinothpandian: 1977 (2) SCC 210 : Magan bihari lal vs state of punjab : In a criminal proceedings ordinarily unsafe to base a conviction solely on the expert opinion without substantial corroboration
[8/11, 14:08] Vinothpandian: AIR 1984 SC 1233 : punjab singh vs state of haryana : In a criminal proceedings it is a settled principle that medical evidence cannot override direct evidence when direct evidence is satisfactory and reliable
[8/11, 14:16] Vinothpandian: 1981 (1) crimes 521 : Harekrishna satpathy and another vs maheshwar sahu : An assault by a public servant on a person can never be a part of official duty nor can it be said to be in discharge of official duty and therefore sanction for prosecution under section 197 CRPC will not be necessary
[8/11, 14:16] Vinothpandian: 1987 (2) crimes 257 : purna palai vs state : In a criminal trial it has been held that if two views are possible according to two doctors , the view in favour of the accused should be accepted
[8/12, 05:35] Vinothpandian: 1999 (2) RCR ( criminal ) 176 : state of kerala vs Maxon john : when a person is produced from police custody with bodily injury , court has to presume that the person was subjected to torture
[8/12, 05:35] Vinothpandian: 2000(1) RCR ( criminal ) 690 : state vs Ravi @ munna : In a criminal trial accused not represented by any counsel , appointment of counsel at state expense is not an idle formality , it is a right enshrined under art 21 of constitution of india
[8/12, 05:35] Vinothpandian: 2000 (4) RCR ( criminal ) 654 ( delhi ) ( DB ) : In a criminal trial , magistrate is empowered to close prosecution evidence when prosecution is unable to produce its witnesses inspite of repeated opportunities
[8/13, 09:32] Vinothpandian: 2020 (3) CTC 219 : kumaresan VK vs P jayaseelan : lawyers are globally recognised as officers of court and agents of administration of justice , they are imposed with social duty to promote rule of law
[8/13, 09:32] Vinothpandian: 2015 (6) CTC 22 : Anantha murugan SM vs chairman bar council of india : persons who have been dismissed or removed from service or left services consequent to departmental in – house proceedings are not eligible for enrolment as advocates
[8/13, 09:54] Vinothpandian: 2020 (1) CTC 456 : surinder singh deswal @ col SS deswal vs virender gandhi : In a proceedings under section.138 NI act held non – compliance of condition of suspension of sentence is sufficient to declare suspension of sentence as having been vacated , such order well within jurisdiction of lower appellate court
[8/13, 10:01] Vinothpandian: 2012 (5) SCC 706 : Mrudul M damle vs CBI : In a proceedings relating to transfer of a criminal case , safety convenience of parties including witnesses to be produced at trial are the relevant considerations ( sec 406 CRPC 1973 )
[8/14, 05:32] 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
[8/14, 05:32] Vinothpandian: 2013 (1) DRTC 650 : Dilip kumar singh & another vs state of UP through sec ministry of finance : secured creditor is legally entitled to take physical possession even after execution of sale deed in favour of auction purchaser , scheme of SARFASI act and rules do not indicate that without taking actual possession , bank cannot proceed with sale of mortgaged assets ( sec 14 SARFASI act )
[8/14, 05:49] Vinothpandian: 2014 (1) DRTC 257 : Kailash chandra sharma vs ICICI bank ltd and others : Notice under section 13 (2) of the SARFASI act to be issued by secured creditor need to be valid and effective in law , if such a notice is issued by a counsel representing bank / secured creditor / authorised officer under section 13 (2) on instruction founded on a conscious decision approving such a step , same cannot be repudiated to be in contravention of letter and spirit of provisions of acts and rules
[8/14, 06:01] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) DRTC 179 : saraswat co- operative bank ltd vs state of maharastra : Bank sought possession of secured assets , collector did not take action merely on ground of pendency of suit , collector bound to follow principles of law , cannot enter upon an adjudication of merits of claim of bank , exercise of powers by collector under sec 14 of SARFASI act explained
[8/16, 05:19] Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) DRTC 52 ( DB ) : KR chandrasekaran & others vs union of india : Power of bank or financial institution to resort to provision of section 14 of SARFASI act is only in continuation and after taking possession as per process enumerated under section 13 (4) of the act , bank cannot straightaway approach the chief metropolitan magistrate or district magistrate under section 14 of the act to assist it in taking possession of secured assets
[8/16, 05:19] 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 )
[8/16, 09:52] 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