Vinoth pandian law tips Vinothpandian: Supreme court ; WP No ( criminal ) 113 of 2016 dated 3 – 01 – 2023 : kaushal kishor vs state of Uttar pradesh : In India , the government can be held liable for tortious acts of its servants and can be ordered to be paid compensation to the persons suffering as a result of the legal wrong

[1/7, 11:36] Vinothpandian: Supreme court ; WP No ( criminal ) 113 of 2016 dated 3 – 01 – 2023 : kaushal kishor vs state of Uttar pradesh : In India , the government can be held liable for tortious acts of its servants and can be ordered to be paid compensation to the persons suffering as a result of the legal wrong
[1/7, 11:36] Vinothpandian: Supreme court : civil appeal no 8442 of 2022 dated 14 -11- 2022 : M/ S Laxmi srinivasa R and P boiled rice milk vs state of Andhra pradesh : while adjudicating delay petition under limitation act , exclusion of time is different and cannot be equated with condonation of delay under section 14 of limitation act
[1/7, 11:54] Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) MWN ( cri ) 626 : Dhurga vaishnavi shivamoorthi vs murthy : conduct of accused subsequent to release on bail and supervening circumstances alone relevant for cancellation of bail ( sec 439 (2) CRPC 1973 )
[1/7, 11:54] Vinothpandian: 2017 (2) DRTC 309 : Lakshya concosts pvt ltd vs bank of baroda : chief metropolitan magistrate or district magistrate only empowered to assist secured creditor in taking over possession of secured asset ( sec 14 SARFASI act )
[1/7, 11:54] Vinothpandian: 2013 (3) RCR (cri ) 76 : Prem kaur vs state of punjab : In a judgement , absence of sound reasons is not a mere irregularity , but a patent illegality
[1/9, 12:38] Vinothpandian: 2012 (8) SCC 706 : church of christ charitable trust & educational society vs Ponniamman educational trust : To reject plaint even before registration of plaint on one or more grounds mentioned in order 7 rule 11 CPC , held other defendants need not necessarily be heard at all as it does not affect their rights
[1/9, 12:57] Vinothpandian: AIR 2015 SC 242 : Tajender singh ghambir vs Gurpreet singh & others : Held deficiency in court – fee in respect of plaint can be rectified or made good during the appellate stage ( order 7 rule 11 CPC 1908 )
[1/9, 13:05] Vinothpandian: 2012 (12) SCC 581 : state of goa vs praveen enterprises : Held object of providing for counter claims is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to avoid divergent findings ( order 8 rule 6 – A CPC 1908 )
[1/9, 13:35] Vinothpandian: AIR 1998 kant 141 : M/ S united india insurance co ltd vs sharda Adyanathaya : Insurance company not liable when driver of vehicle not possessing permanent or even learners licence
[1/9, 13:35] Vinothpandian: 2012 (6) supreme today 612 : chandrasekaran vs Administrative officer : wrongdoers must be denied profit from their frivolous litigation and that they should be prevented from introducing and relying upon , false pleadings and forged or fabricated documents in the records furnished by them to the court
[1/10, 14:08] Vinothpandian: 2015 (1) DRTC 31 : G Purnachander vs syndicate bank : Guarantor cannot be made liable beyond terms of agreement and parties bound by terms of agreement of guarantee
[1/10, 14:08] Vinothpandian: 2016 (1) DRTC 820 ; Kelukutty PM and others vs young mens christian association and another : Deed transferring or creating any right in immovable property requires registration ( Registration act 1908 section 17 )
[1/10, 14:08] Vinothpandian: 2004 (3) crimes 149 SC : Dr suresh gupta vs government of NCT of delhi : The supreme court has quoted blame is a powerful weapon when used appropriately and according to morally defensible criteria , it has indispensable role in human affairs , its inappropriate use however distorts tolerant and constructive relations between people
[1/10, 14:08] Vinothpandian: 2019 (5) CTC 518 : Amsaveni N vs R loganathan : In a private complaint under section 156(3) CRPC failure to file sworn affidavit is fatal
[1/10, 14:08] Vinothpandian: 2019 (5) CTC 97 : sarojinidevi A rep by power agent vs R Arumugam : code of civil procedure and civil rules of practice permits appearance of non – advocate to conduct litigation
[1/11, 14:07] 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 )
[1/11, 14:07] 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 )
[1/11, 14:07] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) DRTC 801v: sterlite technologies ltd vs union of india : Elements of a prima facie case and question.of financial hardship required to be considered by debt recovery appellate tribunal while considering application for waiver
[1/11, 14:07] Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) scale 698 : Bir singh vs mukesh kumar : subsequent filling in of an unfilled signed cheque is not an alteration
[1/11, 14:07] Vinothpandian: 2019 (4) SCC 767 : Ripudaman singh vs balkrishna : cheque issued by purchaser of a property not honoured , disputes cannot be considered in petition under section 482 CRPC , such disputes to be considered only in regular trial
[1/12, 11:05] Vinothpandian: 2007 (7) SCC 309 : MCD vs qimat rai gupta : court should not add or delete words in statute
[1/12, 11:05] Vinothpandian: 2019 (3) MLJ 815 : Ravichandran AR vs magnitude realtors : order 7 rule 11 CPC 1908 : limitation aspect could be taken into consideration only if it is prima facie barred by limitation not under presumption and assumptions
[1/12, 11:05] Vinothpandian: 2019 (5) LW 172 : motilal vs BK babu sahib : while considering an application under order 7 rule 11 CPC , court to look into averments stated in the plaint alone while passing orders to reject the plaint
[1/12, 11:05] Vinothpandian: 2006 (6) SCC 736 : indian oil corporation vs NEPC india ltd : Existence or availment of civil remedy in respect of disputes arising out of breach of contract does not bar remedy under criminal law
[1/12, 11:05] Vinothpandian: 2005 (3) crimes 87 : state of delhi vs navjot sandhu : A few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused in the offence of criminal conspiracy
[1/12, 11:05] Vinothpandian: 2007 (4) RCR ( criminal ) 870 SC : B suresh yadav vs sharifa bee : liability of a person can be both civil and criminal at the same time , criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law
[1/12, 11:05] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) SCC 135 : Rajinder kumar & others vs shri kuldeep singh : order 8 rule 10 CPC 1908 : held exparte decree is a valid decree for all purposes
[1/12, 11:05] Vinothpandian: 2007 (3) RCR ( criminal ) 166 ( FB ) : P damodran vs cherkalam Abdulla : With regard to contempt proceedings initiated by supreme court or high court under articles 215 & 129 of constitution , limitation of one year prescribed under section 20 of contempt of courts act is applicable
[1/13, 10:44] Vinothpandian: 2019 (6) SCC 111 : SK miglani vs state NCT of delhi : Magistrate at any stage prior to final trial is to avoid any conclusive opinion regarding any evidence collected during investigation.
[1/13, 10:44] Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) CWC 363 : chandramohan G vs director institute of road transport chennai : Held regularization of persons appointed on contract basis is not a matter of right ( section 18 industrial disputes act 1947 )
[1/13, 10:44] 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
[1/13, 10:44] Vinothpandian: 1987 (2) RCR 199 : jagtar singh vs state of punjab : constitution of india article 161 : High court cannot direct the governor to decide the mercy petition within time frames , no rush or hurry should be generated by court
[1/13, 10:44] Vinothpandian: 1995 (1) RCR 210 SC : chandra shashi vs Anil.kumar verma : An apology merely to protect against rigorous of law is not apology
[1/13, 10:44] Vinothpandian: 2016 (10) SCC 676 : state bank of travancore & others vs R sobhana : Borrower losing their property for non – payment of loan , suffering from acute illness apart from severe financial distress , bank earning profit on the property , for doing complete justice , bank directed to pay Rs 5 lak to borrowers as ex gratia
[1/13, 10:44] Vinothpandian: 2012 (4) CTC 257 : palanisamy NP vs state of tamil.nadu ; Any interpretation which cause damage to very cause of justice or object of act be opposed to rule of law