Vinoth pandian law tips Vinothpandian: 2017 (1) CCC 532 : Buddha jagadeeswara rao vs sri ravi enterprises : courts obliged to intimate registrar office after cancellation of an instrument of transfer of any immovable property , section.49 of the indian

[4/18, 14:45] Vinothpandian: 2017 (1) CCC 532 : Buddha jagadeeswara rao vs sri ravi enterprises : courts obliged to intimate registrar office after cancellation of an instrument of transfer of any immovable property , section.49 of the indian registration act permits admission of unregistered documents in evidence for collateral purposes , but it should be duly stamped
[4/18, 14:45] Vinothpandian: 2013 (1) CTC 399 : Gian chand & brothers and another vs Rattan lal @ Rattan singh : Burden of proving fraud , undue influence or misrepresentation lies on the person making it , while burden of proof never shifts , onus of proof shifts , 2006 (5) SCC 558 relied upon
[4/18, 14:45] Vinothpandian: 2018 (7) SCC 581 : sheila sebastin vs R jawaharaj : In a forgery case , making of a document is different than causing it to be made , a charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a person who is not the maker of the same
[4/18, 14:45] Vinothpandian: 2012 (8) SCC 537 : state of UP vs sanjay kumar : life imprisonment cannot be equivalent to imprisonment for 14 years or 20 years , rather it always meant as the whole natural life
[4/18, 14:45] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) CCC 414 : Parasagani venkaiah & another vs Pandi prasad : Records prepared by investigating officer in criminal case cannot be looked into by the accused , except for purposes to mark as contradictions or omissions during trial ( sec 162 CRPC 1973 )
[4/18, 14:45] 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
[4/19, 10:04] Vinothpandian: 2015 (1) DRTC 731 : M/ S priya bhatia vs state bank of patiala : Rights of third party.auction purchaser cannot be set at naught because of one time settlement which was on basis of consent of borrower and creditor ( sec 30 RDDBFI act 1993 )
[4/19, 10:04] Vinothpandian: 2021 (1) CTC 180 : jesu ( died ) vs V virgin : Held requirement to file amended copy of plaint is for courts convenience , plaintiff cannot be non – suited for not filing amended copy ( order 6 rule 1 CPC 1908 )
[4/19, 10:04] Vinothpandian: 2020 (6) CTC 198 ; Abhilasha vs parkash SC : Hindu father morally and legally liable to maintain his unmarried daughter , said principle is incorporated in section 20 ( 3) of hindu adoptions and maintenance act 1956
[4/19, 10:04] Vinothpandian: 2020 (4) CTC 549 : shaji purushothaman vs union of india : under section 61(2) of the insolvency and bankruptcy code appeal to be filed within 30 days before NCLAT
[4/19, 10:04] Vinothpandian: 2021 (1) CTC 219 : kaushik chatterjee vs state of haryana SC : At any stage in civil proceedings , plaint can be returned under order 7 rule 10 CPC to be presented before the appropriate court
[4/19, 10:04] Vinothpandian: 2021 (1) CTC 120 : V Alagar vs Inspector general of registration : Held under tamil nadu registration rules rule 55 , Registering authority bound to consider objections raised on grounds specified in rule 55
[4/21, 09:33] Vinothpandian: AIR 2018 SC 980 : dataram singh vs state of uttar pradesh : With regard to a bail application , freedom of an indivdual is of utmost importance and same cannot be curtailed merely on suspicion , till the time guilt of accused is not proved in accordance with law , he is deemed to be innocent , on such grounds bail can be granted
[4/21, 09:33] Vinothpandian: 2018 (1) crimes 91 : Lachhman dass vs Resham chand kaler : It is not expected from the high court to pass mandatory orders commanding the subordinate court to compulsorily grant bail
[4/21, 09:34] Vinothpandian: 2020 (4) CTC 810 : louis sinnaya arokiasamy vs vengadachalam : sec 151 CPC 1908 : Held party which has not approached court with clean hands is not entitled to indulgence of court
[4/21, 09:34] Vinothpandian: AIR 1997 AP 53 : Habeeb khan vs valasula devi : order 6 rule 2 CPC 1908 : Evidence presented before court should be according to the pleadings , irrelevant evidence should be avoided during specific pleadings
[4/21, 09:34] 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
[4/21, 09:34] 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
[4/21, 09:34] 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
[4/24, 06:40] Vinothpandian: 2014 (3) CCC 280 : mohandas panicker vs dakshayani : In a family court proceedings , when adultery on wife is proved , she is not entitled to get any amount as maintenance under section 125 (4) CRPC 1973
[4/24, 06:40] 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 )
[4/24, 06:40] Vinothpandian: 2015 (5) CTC 45 : Tim boyd , international president vs kesiraju krishna phani : cause of action is bundle of facts including some acts done by defendant which if traversed , it would be necessary for plaintiff to prove in order to sustain relief sought by him ( order 7 rule 11 CPC 1908 )
[4/24, 06:40] Vinothpandian: 2014 (1) CTC 561 : srinivasan PN ( deceased ) vs state of tamil nadu : Erection of permanent structures / statutes / arch would offend fundamental right to move in public roads
[4/24, 06:40] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC 274 : deepti trading co rep by its proprietor vs authorised officer ICICI bank ltd : once tribunal found that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the SARFASI application , it is not empowered to pass any order touching upon merits of case ( sec 13 (2) & 13(4) SARFASI act )
[4/24, 06:40] Vinothpandian: 2014 (1) DRTC 576 : sahara industries ,patrampur road jaspur vs state bank of india : RDDBFI act as well as SARFASI act being complementary to each other , there is no provision in either of acts to debar initiation of a proceeding under SARFASI act during pendency of proceeding under RDDBFI act
[4/25, 13:26] Vinothpandian: 2019 (6) CTC 340 : Dr swapan kumar banerjee vs state of west bengal : mere fact that wife did not file petition for grant of maintenance during pendency of matrimonial proceedings would not disentitle her to claim maintenance ( section 125 CRPC 1973 )
[4/25, 13:26] Vinothpandian: 2019 (6) CTC 337 : fazaullah khan vs M Akbar contractor (d) rep by LRS : Interim orders granted by supreme court not automatically vacated beyond six months period , such interim order must continue to be in force till appeal decided
[4/25, 13:26] Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) CTC 924 : varun pahwa vs Renu choudhary : power to grant amendment of pleadings is intended to serve ends of justice and not governed by narrow technicalities ( order 6 rule 17 CPC 1908 )
[4/25, 13:26] Vinothpandian: AIR 1993 SC 852 : Ramjas foundation vs union of india : Person invoking an equitable extraordinary jurisdiction under art 226 of constitution of india should come with clean hands and should not conceal the material fact
[4/25, 13:26] Vinothpandian: 2004 (2) SCC 783 : karnataka Rare earth vs dept of mines : person acting without any lawful authority must not find himself placed in a position more advantageous than a person acting with lawful authority
[4/25, 13:26] Vinothpandian: 2014 (1) All india criminal LR SC 96 : state of punjab vs madan mohan lal.verma : mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantive evidence in case is not reliable , unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as a bribe , mere reciept of amount by accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt in absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification
[4/25, 13:26] Vinothpandian: 2012 (3),All india criminal LR 446 : ND nair vs george martin : Award passed by the lok adalat which has all the trappings and characteristics of a decree , passed by a civil court or an order of any other court has to be put in execution as though it had been passed by a civil court
[4/26, 13:38] Vinothpandian: 2014 (1) CTC 726 : sathu dharmananda saraswathi swamigal trust vs sree shanmugha seva sangam.nattar trust : CPC 1908 order 17 held no law says that once memo is filed stating petition of transfer is filed matter to be adjourned
[4/26, 13:38] Vinothpandian: 2012 (3) SCC ( cri ) 761 : Kalu @ Amit vs state of haryana : courts must not by remissness or inefficiency of investigating agency and acquit accused if core of prosecution case is undented and established
[4/26, 13:38] Vinothpandian: AIR 2018 MP 134 : Ganesh shri balaji constructions C class contractor vs executive engineer PWD : Arbitrators are appointed by parties to do justice in sense of arriving at fair decision and not in sense of judicial justice , arbitrator is not bound by strict law of evidence
[4/26, 13:38] Vinothpandian: 2010 (8) SCC 673 : Biman basu vs kallol guha thakurta : petition to take action against a person under sec 15 of contempt of courts act without written consent of advocate general not maintainable in law
[4/26, 13:38] 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 )
[4/27, 12:59] Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) MWN ( cri ).5 : RIPUDAMAN SINGH vs Balkrishna : cheques issued in pursuance of agreement to sell does not create any interest in immovable property , but it constitutes a legally enforceable contract between the parties to it ,payment made in.pursuance of such agreements is a payment made in pursuance of a duly enforceable debt or liability ( sec 138 NI act 1881 )
[4/27, 12:59] Vinothpandian: Supreme court : Lalit kumar jain vs union of india Transferred case ( civil ) 245 / 2020 dated 21 – 05 – 2021 : Approval of resolution plan relating to a corporate debtor does not operate so as to discharge liabilities of personal guarantors to corporate debtors , sanction of a resolution plan does not per se operate as a discharge of the guarantors liability ( Insolvency & bankruptcy code 2016 section 30 )
[4/27, 12:59] Vinothpandian: Supreme court : Uttar Pradesh power transmission corporation vs CG power and industrial solutions ltd SLP no 8630 of 2020 f2 – 05 – 2021 : Existence of arbitration clause does not debar court from entertaining a writ petition
[4/27, 12:59] Vinothpandian: Supreme court : M/ S Amaravathi packaging industries & another vs shanmughasundaram & another SLP No ( criminal ) 12638 of 2020 dated 11- 01- 2021 : Exemption from surrendering in a case where three courts have concurrently convicted the accused for offence under section 138 Of NI act is of discretion of supreme court
[4/27, 12:59] Vinothpandian: 2020 ( 2) SCC 474 : Rekha murarka vs state of west Bengal,: IN assigning a supportive role to victims counsel in a criminal proceedings ,making oral arguments and cross examine witnesses by victims counsel goes beyond a mere assistive role and constitutes a parallel prosecution by itself
[4/27, 12:59] Vinothpandian: Supreme court : Nathu singh vs state of Uttar pradesh SLP ( cri ) no 2096 of 2021 dated 28- 05 – 2021 : High court after the dismissal of an anticipatory bail application , on the basis of the nature and gravity of the offence cannot without assigning any reasons grant 90 days time to surrender before the trial court
[4/28, 10:55] Vinothpandian: 2019 (1) DRTC 1 : M/ S Hindon forge pvt Ltd vs state of Uttar pradesh through district magistrate Ghaziabad : section.17 of the SARFASI act gets attracted once possession is taken under rule 8( 1) and 8(2) of the securities read with section 13( 4 ) of the SARFASI act
[4/28, 10:55] Vinothpandian: Supreme court : kapur singh vs state of haryana : SLP ( cri ) diary no 5187 of 2021 dated 3- 03 – 2021 : when term of imprisonment not prescribed under dishonour of cheque act read with CRPC and in orders impugned in SLP question of surrendering or seeking exemption from surrendering does not arise
[4/28, 10:55] Vinothpandian: Supreme court : civil appeal no 1700 of 2021 dated 13 – 05 – 2021 India resurgence ARC pvt ltd vs Amit metaliks Ltd: scope of judicial review limited , every dissatisfaction does not partake the character of a legal grievance and cannot be taken up as a ground of appeal ( Insolvency and bankruptcy code 2016 section 30 (2) )
[4/28, 10:55] Vinothpandian: Supreme court : criminal appeal no 1209 of 2021 dated 21- 10-2021 : Absconder / proclaimed offender not entitled to relief of anticipatory bail
[4/29, 11:46] Vinothpandian: AIR 2000 SC 2912 : RD saxena vs balaram prasad sharma : Refusal to return the files to the client by the lawyer when demanded amounts to misconduct under section 35 of the advocates act
[4/29, 11:46] Vinothpandian: 2001 (2) SCC 221 : DP chadha vs Triyugi narain mishra : The collusion among advocates to bring false compromise in existence before the court amounts to professional misconduct
[4/29, 11:46] Vinothpandian: AIR 2006 MAD 186 : Abdul sukhure bhai vs durai kuppuswamy ,: order of the court for police protection is to specifically indicate in precise terms the purpose for which police protection is ordered ( sec 151 CPC 1908 )
[4/29, 11:46] Vinothpandian: AIR 1965 SC 948 : Isher singh vs sarwan singh : erroneous decision on interpretation of section 96 of CPC does not render the decision nullity
[4/29, 11:46] Vinothpandian: AIR 1989 ori 145 : M/ S bennett coleman co ltd vs JB patnaik : If defendants apprehend danger to their witnesses , they should disclose their identity so that the court could arrange necessary steps for their safety ( order XVI rules 1 and 1 – A CPC 1908 )
[4/29, 11:47] Vinothpandian: 1999 (3) SCC 573 : jagriti upbhogta kalyan parishad vs union of india : on finding that a party is deliberately avoiding presence before court , court can issue non – bailable warrant to ensure his presence before court ( order XVI rule 10 CPC 1908 )
[5/2, 13:55] 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 )
[5/2, 13:56] 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 )
[5/2, 13:56] 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 )
[5/2, 13:56] Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) CTC 1 : subramanian R vs ICICI bank ltd chennai : Bankers book evidence act 1884 section 4 : Held when bank marked statement of accounts along with certificate under section 4 of bankers books evidence act , certificate need not be produced for each and every page of statement of accounts
[5/2, 13:56] Vinothpandian: 2019 (6) CTC 263 : kaleur rahman vs P kannan : suit for bare injunction restraining the authorities from granting electricity connection falls within bar of section 145 of the electricity act 2003
[5/3, 13:55] Vinothpandian: 2021 (4) CTC 119 : compack enterpries india pvt ltd vs Beant singh : court can unilaterally rectify clerical or aritmetical errors in consent decree to make it conform with terms of compromise ( order 23 rule 3 CPC 1908 )
[5/3, 13:55] Vinothpandian: 2021 (4) CTC 1 ; subramanian k vs state through inspector of police vigilance and anti corruption tirunelveli ( FB ) : person holding office which authorizes requires him to perform any public duty is public servant within meaning of act
[5/3, 13:55] Vinothpandian: 2005 (1) RCR ( criminal ) 207 : Amal kumar bose vs state of west bengal : failure to pay instalments to bank for a vehicle under hire purchase agreement , banking officials can repossess the vehicle only in accordance with law and not by force or engaging muscle men
[5/3, 13:55] Vinothpandian: 2001 (3) RCR ( criminal ) 536 SC “: state of UP vs satendra singh tomar : act committed in chamber attached to court room is contempt of court
[5/3, 13:55] Vinothpandian: 2010 (3) SCC 83 : mandvi coop bank ltd vs Nimesh B Thakore : Right to give evidence on affidavit as provided to complainant under sec 145 (1) of Negotiable instruments act is not available to accused
[5/3, 13:55] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) SCC 553 : vinayak narayan deosthali vs CBI : Patent illegality cannot be defended in the name of practice or direction of higher authorities while deciding cases relating to corruption
[5/3, 13:55] Vinothpandian: 2011 (14) SCC 615 : Punjab state warehousing corp vs sh durga ji traders : In a criminal proceedings an order of exemption from personal appearance continues to be in force till it is revoked or recalled
[5/3, 13:55] 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 )
[5/3, 13:55] 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
[5/4, 14:07] Vinothpandian: 2017 (2) DRTC 244 : B Rajarajeshwari vs presiding officer drt 2 : A litigant should not be put in a disadvantages situation by act of court , sec 152 of CPC equally applies to sec 26(2) and (3) of RDDBFI act 1993