[2/1, 14:02] Vinothpandian: 2011 (10) SCC 608 : Royal orchid hoteld ltd vs G jayarama reddy : If any land is acquired for public purpose by state government , such acquired land could not be transferred to any private individual and corporation
[2/1, 14:02] Vinothpandian: AIR 1953 SC 225 : Hira lal vs Badkulal : Acknowledgement made in statement of accounts based on mutual dealings held sufficient to furnish a cause of account for maintaining a suit
[2/1, 14:08] Vinothpandian: AIR 2001 SC 279 : Ratan singh vs vijay singh : where execution of decree was sought beyond period of 12 years after it becomes enforceable , it was held barred by limitation ( art 136 limitation act )
[2/2, 16:08] Vinothpandian: AIR 2009 SC 636 : komalam Amma vs kumara pillai Raghavan pillai : Right to residence is a part and parcel of wifes right to maintainence
[2/2, 16:08] Vinothpandian: 2008 (2) SCC 660 : state of punjab vs jalour singh : lok Adalats should resist their temptation to play the part of judges and constantly strive to function as conciliators
[2/2, 16:14] Vinothpandian: 2008 (4) SCC 774 : chand patel vs bismillah begum : sec 125 CRPC applies to all persons belonging to all religions and has no relationship to personal law of the parties
[2/2, 16:14] Vinothpandian: 2006 CRILJ 1622 : Ramesh kumari vs state : Genuniness or credibility of information not a condition precedent for registration of a case , that can only be considered after registration of a case
[2/3, 11:01] Vinothpandian: 2011 (4) All india criminal LR ( SC ) 508 : R vijayan vs baby : Proceedings under section 138 of the act cannot be treated as civil suits for recovery of the cheque amount with interest
[2/3, 11:01] Vinothpandian: 2012 CRI LJ 3068 : munna kumar upadhyaya vs state of AP : If the accused gave incorrect or false answers during the course of his statement under section 313 CRPC , the court can draw an adverse inference against him
[2/3, 11:15] Vinothpandian: 2013 (4) All india criminal LR ( DB ) : IN Re ketabul Sk : mere failure to disclose pendency of a bail application before a superior court is not a relevant ground for cancellation of bail
[2/4, 16:30] Vinothpandian: 2010(2) crimes 740 : state of HP vs dr Ravinder datyal ; Held for fixing criminal liability of a doctor or surgeon , the standard of negligence required to be proved should be so high as can be described as gross negligence or recklessness
[2/4, 16:38] Vinothpandian: 2013 (3) All india criminal LR : Demand for money on account of financial stringency or for meeting urgent domestic expenses does not amount to demand for dowry2013 (3) All india criminal LR : Demand for money on account of financial stringency or for meeting urgent domestic expenses does not amount to demand for dowry Shanta vs state of karnataka
[2/4, 16:57] Vinothpandian: 2013 (4) All india criminal LR ( SC ) 481 : sumit mehta vs state of NCT of delhi : A person should not be harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy the grudge or personal vendetta of the complainant , grant of bail under section 438 (1) of CRPC is dependent on the merits and circumstances of a case
[2/7, 15:18] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) DRTC 673 : K padma vs K Ramachandran & others : Debts recovery tribunal and debts recovery appellate tribunal , both considered to be civil court with regard to recovery proceedings
[2/7, 15:18] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC 274 : deepthi trading co rep by its proprietor & others 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
[2/7, 15:18] Vinothpandian: 2013 (1) DRTC 799 : Bharat minerals grinding industries vs state of jharkhand : secured creditor has to communicate within one week of receipt of such representation / objection from the borrower , reasons for non – acceptance of representation / objection to the borrower ( sec 13 SARFASI act )
[2/7, 15:37] Vinothpandian: 2017 (2) DRTC 277 : Bhagwati printers pvt ltd vs IDBI bank ltd : An order rejecting or granting an application for condonation of delay in filing an application under sec 17 SARFASI act is an order under section 17 of the act , it would be appealable under section 18 of the act
[2/7, 15:37] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC SC 27 : mathew varghese vs Amritha kumari : section 13(8) engrafted in SARFASI act primarily enacted with a view to protect rights of a borrower
[2/8, 10:15] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) DRTC 829 : moin leather wear exports & others vs oriental bank of commerce : while deciding on an application to set aside the exparte order , DRT under guise of setting aside ex parte order cannot recover amount in the form of passing conditional orders , without taking up the matter on merits
[2/8, 10:15] Vinothpandian: 2017 (2) DRTC 629 : panther fin cap & management services ltd vs bank of india : procedure for execution of decree taking recourse to provisions of CPC cannot be equated with proceedings for recovery under a certificate issued by debt recovery tribunal
[2/8, 10:50] Vinothpandian: 2013 (2) DRTC 114 : Nippo foods vs state of punjab : In a suit for recovery of bank dues , liability of guarantor dependent upon liability of borrower
[2/8, 10:50] Vinothpandian: 2016 (1) DRTC 425 : sudha sharma & another vs punjab national bank : provision of section 13 of SARFASI act not dependent on any other provision of law , complete code in itself to enforce security interest , neither sec 41 of TP act nor sec 125 of the companies act are applicable
[2/9, 10:22] Vinothpandian: Supreme court judgement : civil appeal no 901 of 2022 dated 3- 02 – 2022 New Okhla industrial development authority vs yunus : In a land acquisition proceedings award passed by lok Adalat cannot form basis for redetermination of compensation
[2/9, 10:22] Vinothpandian: Supreme court judgement: SLP ( civil ) No 9496 of 2020 dated 4- 02 – 2022 Ajanta LLP vs casino keisanki kabushiki computer ltd : consent decree cannot be modified / altered unless the mistake is patent or obvious mistake ( order 23 rule 3 CPC 1908 )
[2/9, 10:38] Vinothpandian: 2021 (1) CTC 830 : saradhammal vs sankaralingam : Held transfer of immovable property under attachment with knowledge of attachment vitiates transfer ( sec 52 transfer of property act 1882 )
[2/9, 10:38] Vinothpandian: 2019 (5) SCC 755 : Bharat broad band network ltd vs United telecoms ltd : when a person is approached in connection with his possible appointment as an arbitrator , it is his duty to disclose in writing any circumstances which are likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence or impartiality ( arbitration and conciliation act 1996 sec 34 )
[2/9, 10:38] Vinothpandian: 2019 (3) SCC 39 ; Joseph shine vs union.of india : A bench disagreeing with decision.of a larger or coequal bench can only refer the matter to a larger bench , it cannot disagree or dissent
[2/10, 09:54] Vinothpandian: 2011 (4) SCC 363 : lanka venkateswarlu vs state of Andhra pradesh : If any application under section 5 of the limitation act is filed for condonation of delay on basis of enough reasons , concerned court often has liberal approach in respect there of
[2/10, 09:54] Vinothpandian: 2010 (12) scale 209 : Indian oil corporation ltd vs subrata borah chowlek : A party even upon showing a sufficient cause for delay is not entitled to condonation of delay as a matter of right
[2/10, 09:59] Vinothpandian: 2011 (10) SCC 608 : Royal orchid hotels ltd vs G jayarama reddy : If any land is acquired for public purpose by state government , such acquired land could not be transferred to any private indivdual and corporation
[2/10, 10:24] Vinothpandian: 2018 (3) crimes 491 : mohammed zakir vs shabana : High court should not exercise power under section 362 CRPC for a correction on merits
[2/10, 10:24] Vinothpandian: 2012 (4) SCC 307 : kanwar singh saini vs high court of delhi : for violation of a judgement or decree , provisions of criminal contempt not attracted
[2/11, 11:00] Vinothpandian: Supreme court judgement : somabhai Ajmeri vs Aksharay developers & others civil appeal no 785 of 2022 dated 31-01-22 : section 69 (2) of partnership act cannot bar enforcement by way of suit by unregistered firm in respect of statutory right or common law right
[2/11, 11:00] Vinothpandian: Supreme court judgement : Bank of baroda & another vs MBL infrastructures ltd and others civil appeal no 8411 of 2019 dated 18- 01-2022 : IN an insolvency proceedings , resolution plan submitted by guarantor cannot be entertained
[2/11, 11:00] Vinothpandian: Supreme court judgement : mohammed masroor sheik vs bharat bhusan gupta civil appeal no 874 of 2022 dated 2- 02 – 2022 : while dealing with petition under section 11 of the arbitration and conciliation act , court by default would refer matter when contentions relating to non arbitrability are plainly arguable
[2/12, 10:41] Vinothpandian: 2007 (6) SCC 528 : dilip S dahanukar vs kotak mahindra company ltd : with regard to suspension of sentence in a criminal proceedings , not only amount of compensation must be reasonable , but condition of suspending sentence should also be reasonable
[2/12, 10:41] Vinothpandian: 2015 (11) SCC 31 : Indra dalal vs state of haryana : when a person is in police custody , the confession made by him even to a third person , that is other than a police officer shall also become inadmissible
[2/12, 10:55] Vinothpandian: 1979 (4) SCC 725 : suraj mal vs state ( delhi administration ) In a corruption case , mere recovery of tainted money , divorced from circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict accused when substantive evidence in case is not reliable
[2/12, 11:01] Vinothpandian: 2008 CRILJ 377 : sarav investment & FCPL vs Llyods register of shipping IOS PF : In a dishonour of cheque case , service of notice is a part of cause of action for lodging complaint
[2/12, 11:25] Vinothpandian: 2001 (2) crimes 32 : state of JK vs Abdul Ahad sheik. : In a proceedings under sec 482 CRPC , high court cannot exceed jurisdiction by trying to analyse evidence and examining defence plea
[2/14, 11:29] Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) SCC 34 : kailash gour vs state of Assam : An accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved to be guilty
[2/14, 11:36] Vinothpandian: AIR 1983 SC 454 : Bhagat Ram vs state of himachal pradesh : If penalty imposed is disproportionate to gravity of misconduct , it would be violative of art 14 of the constitution
[2/14, 11:36] Vinothpandian: 1996 (9) SCC 74 : secretary , Hailakandi bar association vs state of Assam : In a criminal contempt proceedings , belated apology may not be accepted presuming it may not be given in good faith
[2/14, 11:50] Vinothpandian: 2011 (2) SCC 772 : TGN kumar vs state of kerala : In a proceedings regarding exemption from personal appearance of the accused , order of magistrate should be such which does not result in unnecessary harassment to accused and at the same time does not cause any prejudice to complainant
[2/15, 10:03] Vinothpandian: 1999 (3) SCC 54 : vijayan @Rajan vs state of kerala : To punish a person for criminal conspiracy under sec 120 – B of IPC , it is necessary to establish that there was an agreement between parties for doing an unlawful act
[2/15, 10:03] Vinothpandian: 2011 (5) SCC 708 : sushil suri vs CBI : In a cheating case initiated by the bank , a person cannot be exonerated from criminal liabilty merely because dues of bank have been paid up
[2/15, 10:06] Vinothpandian: 2009 (3) crimes 248 : Dalip kaur vs jagnar singh : Breach of contract of an agreement for sale would not constitute an offence under sec 406 or 420 IPC
[2/15, 10:30] Vinothpandian: 2008 (1) crimes 165 ; suryalakshmi cotton mills ltd vs Rajvir industries ltd : commercial expediencies may lead a person to issue blank cheques and filling up of blanks in a cheque itself would not amount to forgery or cheating
[2/15, 10:37] Vinothpandian: 2015 (1) DRTC 197 : Allahabad bank vs shivganga tube well & others : with regard to suit for enforcement of money secured by mortgage , period of limitation would be 12 years from date when money becomes due
[2/16, 11:21] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) DRTC 464 SC : mainuddin Abdul sattar shaik vs vijay D salvi : In a cheque dishonour case , a person who draws a cheque on an account maintained by him for paying the payee alone attracts liability
[2/16, 11:22] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) DRTC 464 SC : mainuddin Abdul sattar shaik vs vijay D salvi : In a cheque dishonour case , a person who draws a cheque on an account maintained by him for paying the payee alone attracts liability
[2/16, 11:32] Vinothpandian: 2016 (1) DRTC 476 : national laminate corporation , mumbai vs Euro merchandise pvt ltd : In a SARFASI litigation , merely because a borrower desires to approach higher court cannot be a ground to stay an order already passed as against him
[2/16, 11:42] Vinothpandian: 2001 (9) SCC 417 : sunil bajaj vs state of MP : In a dowry harassment case , conviction cannot be on the basis of vague and inconsistent and generic allegation
[2/16, 11:53] 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 NI act is not available to accused
[2/17, 15:50] Vinothpandian: 2011 (8) supreme 323 : Bangaru laxman vs state : It was held that while making interpretation of a provision giving birth to a legal fiction , court has to ensure that purpose in respect of which said fiction was created
[2/17, 15:50] Vinothpandian: AIR 1968 SC 870 : Ishwarlal vs state of gujarat : dictionaries and reports of foreign cases held not safe guides , safest guide is the statute itself
[2/17, 15:50] Vinothpandian: 1988 SCC (cri ) 104 : Tulsi Ram vs state of MP : It is no use turning to dictionaries , dictionaries give variegated meaning to words , dictionary meaning are variegated meaning depends on context
[2/17, 15:54] Vinothpandian: 2008 (7) SCC 454 : united india insurance co ltd vs Ajay sinha : Permanent lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to entertain disputes related to non – compoundable criminal offences
[2/18, 19:02] Vinothpandian: Posting of judgements would resume on monday
[2/21, 09:40] Vinothpandian: 2012 (9) SCC 552 : Bharat aluminium co vs kaiser aluminium technical service : Held section 36 of the arbitration and coincilation act necessarily refers to enforcement of domestic awards only
[2/21, 09:40] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) SCC 302 : leela hotels ltd vs housing & urban development corporation ltd ; Held language used in section 36 of the arbitration and coincilation act makes it very clear that arbitration award should be enforced under CPC in same manner as it were a decree of court
[2/21, 14:04] Vinothpandian: 2015 (11) SCC 782 : Lisamma Antony & another vs karthiyayani & another ; Held second appeal under sec 100 of CPC cannot be admitted unless there is substantial question of law involved in it
[2/21, 14:04] Vinothpandian: 2012 (5) SCC 488 : super cassettes industries ltd vs music broadcast pvt ltd : Held in matters under order 39 rules 1 & 2 and sec 151 CPC 1908 , an interim relief granting final relief should be given after exercise of great caution and in rare and exceptional cases
[2/22, 19:00] Vinothpandian: Posting of judgements would resume tomorrow
[2/23, 11:04] Vinothpandian: 2014 (11) SCC 639 : world sport group ( mauritius ) ltd vs MSM satellite ( singapore ) pvt ltd : Held meaning of principle of comity is that courts of one state or jurisdiction will give effect to law and judicial decisions of another state or jurisdiction , not as a matter of obligation but out of deference and mutual respect
[2/23, 11:04] Vinothpandian: 2014 (4) SCC 186 : SVA steel.Re- rolling mills ltd & others vs state of kerala : Held provisions of section 22 – B electricity act 1910 are not applicable where state had given an assurance with regard to uninterrupted supply of electricity to consumers
[2/23, 11:04] Vinothpandian: 2011 (4) SCC 240 : H siddiqui ( dead ) by LRS vs A Ramalingam : Held , it is a duty of court to decide question of admissibility of a document in secondary evidence before making endorsement thereon ( section 65 evidence act )
[2/23, 12:43] Vinothpandian: AIR 2011 SC 2057 : vimleshwar nagappa shet vs noor ahmad sheriff & others ; A concession made by a counsel on a question of fact held is binding on the client , but if it is on a questional of law it is not binding ( order 3 rule 1 & 2 CPC 1908 )
[2/24, 10:47] Vinothpandian: AIR 2014 SC 1155 : Rajinder kumar vs kuldeep singh : once decree for specific performance attained finality , held weak and lame contentions regarding executability of decree cannot be permitted to be raised , ( sec 20 specific relief act 1963 )
[2/24, 10:52] Vinothpandian: 2015 (11) SCC 782 : Lisamma antony & another vs karthiyayani & another : Held second appeal under sec 100 of CPC cannot be admitted unless there is substantial question of law involved in it
[2/24, 11:07] Vinothpandian: 2015 (12) SCC 46 : Rohini traders vs JK lakshmi cement ltd : Held object of order X11 rule 8 of the code is to facilitate the plaintiff or any other party to get a document on record which is not in their possession or in possession of the other party
[2/25, 11:01] Vinothpandian: 2017 (3) SCC 797 : Harjas Rai makhija vs pushparani jain : Held a decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity , such a decree could be challenged at any time in any proceedings ( order 21 rule 90 CPC 1908 )
[2/25, 11:04] Vinothpandian: 2011 (9) SCC 684 : umerkhan vs Bismillabi @ Babulal shaikh & others ; second appellate jurisdiction.of High court under sec 100 CPC 1908 is not a kin to appellate jurisdiction under sec 96 CPC 1908
[2/25, 11:19] Vinothpandian: 2011 (6) SCC 321 : mahadev govind gharge & others vs special land acquisition officer : caveator has a right to be heard by court mandatorily before any interim order can be passed against him ( order 8 rules 6A & 6B CPC 1908 )
[2/26, 19:45] Vinothpandian: 2013 (4) CCC 461 : Ragni chopra vs Rajesh : To read a particular passage in a document is not a correct method of its interpretation , document is to be read as a whole to gather its true import
[2/26, 19:45] Vinothpandian: 2013 (2) DRTC 35 : Devis ispat ltd vs state bank of india : issues relating to validity of decision of declaring an account as non – performing asset essentially relates to disputed question of facts and accounting , in this regard writ jurisdiction is neither permissible nor advisable in law ( sec 13 ( 3- A ) SARFASI act )
[2/26, 19:45] Vinothpandian: 2016 (1) CCC 475 ; Dr Bibhas debnath vs state of west bengal : pleadings in a proceedings under sec 125 CRPC are like pleadings in a civil case and pleadings could be amended in appropriate circumstances
[2/26, 19:45] Vinothpandian: 2017 (1) DRTC 234 : Anjana vs AP vardhaman ( mahila ) cooperative bank ltd : supreme court on many occasions cautioned ” forum shopping ” ought not too be encouraged
[2/26, 19:45] Vinothpandian: 2019 (1) CWC 153 : Renault nissan automotive india pvt ltd sriperumbudur taluk vs deputy commissioner – 11 ( FAC ) large tax payers unit : In fiscal matters , when efficacious alternate remedy is provided under statute , writ petition not maintainable , only exception is in cases where adjudicating authority lacks jurisdiction or principles of natural justice are violated or there is an error apparent on face of order ( art 226 constitution of india )
[2/26, 19:45] Vinothpandian: 2019 (8) MLJ 677 : Hindustan construction co ltd vs union of india : while exercising jurisdiction under art 32 , court cannot embark on detailed investigation of disputed facts
[2/26, 19:45] Vinothpandian: 2013 (2) DRTC 114 : Nippo foods vs state of punjab : With regard suit for recovery of bank dues , non – communication of reasons within seven days for statutory notice issued , borrower not suffered any prejudice for not communicating reasons within seven days , no penal consequences contemplated , in absence of any prejudice and fact that such provision being only directory , bank can continue with proceeding under the act ( sec 13( 3- A SARFASI act )
[2/28, 11:24] Vinothpandian: Supreme court : civil appeal no 2136 of 2012 dated 23- 02- 2022 Horiculture experiment station gonikoppal coorg vs Regional provident fund organization : Any default or delay in payment of EPF contribution by employer , mens rea or actus reus not essential element for imposing penalty / damages for breach of civil obligations / liabilities
[2/28, 11:24] Vinothpandian: Supreme court : criminal appeal no 207 of 2022 dated 15 – 02 – 2022 manoj @ monu @ vishal chaudhary vs state of haryana : Birth certificate issued by corporation or municipal authority or panchayat is relevant document to prove juvenility instead of school leaving record
[2/28, 11:30] Vinothpandian: 2011 (12) SCC 1 : pankaj mahajan vs dimple @ kajal : In a matrimonial proceedings , it has been held giving repeated threats to commit suicide amounts to cruelty , when such a thing is repeated in the form of sign or gesture , no spouse can live peacefully
[3/1, 15:07] Vinothpandian: Supreme court : WP ( criminal )No 256 of 2021 dated 31 – 01- 2022 Mata prasad vs state of UP : Policy prevalent at time of conviction be taken into consideration for considering pre – mature release of a prisoner
[3/1, 15:07] Vinothpandian: Supreme court: criminal appeal no 185 -186 of 2022 dated 7- 02- 2022 serious fraud investigation office vs Rahul modi : In a default bail case right conferred on accused under section 167 (2) CRPC 1973 cannot be exercised after charge – sheet submitted and cognizance taken
[3/1, 15:20] Vinothpandian: Supreme court: civil.appeal no 363 of 2022 dated 10- 02 – 2022 Bank of baroda vs M / S karwa trading company and another : In a SARFASI proceedings , unless and until borrower ready to deposit / pay entire amount payable together with all costs and expenses with secured creditor , borrower cannot be discharged from entire liability outstanding
[3/1, 15:33] Vinothpandian: 2011 (8) SCC 679 : Bakshi dev raj & another vs sudhir kumar : Held in order to safeguard reputation of counsel and to uphold prestige and dignity of legal profession , it is always desirable to get instructions in writing from the client ( order 3 rule 1 & 4 CPC 1908 )
[3/1, 15:42] Vinothpandian: 2011 (7) SCC 69 : Amar singh vs union of india : Held litigants must observe total clarity and candour in their pleadings especially when it contains a prayer for injunction ( order 39 rule 1 & 2 CPC 1908 )
[3/2, 14:54] Vinothpandian: 2010 (10) SCC 677 : Ritesh tewari & another vs state of uttar pradesh : A party that claims equity must come before the court with clean hands as equities have to be properly worked out between parties to ensure that no one is allowed to have their pound of flesh vis – a – vis the others unjustly
[3/2, 14:54] Vinothpandian: 2014 (10) SCC 473 : Anvar PV vs PK Basheer : Held electronic record produced for the inspection of court is documentary evidence under sec 3 of the evidence act 1872
[3/2, 14:54] Vinothpandian: 2011 (4) SCC 240 : H siddiqui ( dead ) by LRS vs A Ramalingam : Held it is the duty of court to decide question of admissibility of a document in secondary evidence before making endorsement thereon ( sec 65 evidence act 1872 )
[3/3, 18:55] Vinothpandian: 2002 (3) RCR ( criminal ) 338 ( DB ) baldev singh vs state of punjab : for grant of bail high court and sessions court have concurrent powers , there is no absolute bar to presentation of a petition for regular bail under section 439 of CRPC before the high court , each case to be decided on facts
[3/3, 19:01] Vinothpandian: 2004 (1) RCR ( criminal ) 58 : M/ S prakash industries ltd vs state : law declared by the supreme court shall be binding on all the courts within the territory of india
[3/3, 19:05] Vinothpandian: 2005 (1) RCR ( criminal ) 607 : public prosecutor high court of AP vs jangili sammaiah alias babu : law reports , short notes , digestive notes having no narration of facts , placing reliance on such reports not desirable
[3/4, 14:59] Vinothpandian: 2013 (10) SCC 568 : MSR leathers vs S palaniappan : Held payee or holder of a cheque has a right to present the cheque as many number of times for encashment within a period of six months or within its validity period ( sec 138 NI act 1881 )
[3/4, 14:59] Vinothpandian: 2012 (3) SCC 563 : office of the chief post master general vs living media india ltd : condonation of delay held is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments ( sec 5 limitation act 1963 )
[3/4, 15:06] Vinothpandian: 2013 (12) scale 30 : vinod Raghuvanshi vs Ajay Arora : while considering case for quashing of criminal proceedings the court should not ” kill a still born child ” , and appropriate prosecution should not be stifled unless there are compelling circumstances to do so
[3/4, 15:10] Vinothpandian: 2016 (1) SCC ( cri ) 544 : N sunkanna vs state of Andhra pradesh : In a corruption case relating to bribe , unless there is proof of demand of illegal gratification proof of acceptance will not follow
[3/5, 10:30] Vinothpandian: 2018 (4) CPJ 206 ( NC ) : Rajesh gupta vs Axis bank : loan availed and settled / closed by the complainant from the opposite party , opposite party failed to return the documents and had just taken a plea that documents were of no value ,held opposite party was directed to issue indemnity bond in favour of complainant , Rs 50000 to complainant towards financial damages , Rs 50000 towards mental agony , Rs 15000 towards litigation expenses by the national consumer disputes Redressal commission , new delhi
[3/5, 10:43] Vinothpandian: 2018 (3) CPJ 19 A : state bank of india vs Anandan KS : consumer forum had held with regard to housing loan schemes , publication of circular on notice board of bank cannot be construed as notice to existing home loan buyers
[3/5, 12:01] Vinothpandian: 1999 (8) SCC 715 : state of karnataka vs yarappa reddy : criminal justice should not be allowed to become casualty for wrongs committed by investigating officers
[3/5, 12:03] Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) SCC 34 : kailash gour vs state of Assam : An accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved to be guilty
[3/6, 21:11] Vinothpandian: Judgements posting would resume tomorrow
[3/7, 15:15] Vinothpandian: AIR 2016 SC 2914 : Prakash nagardas dubal – shaha vs sou meena prakash : unsuccessful divorce proceedings cannot adversely affect the maintainability of application filed by contesting respondents under the domestic violence act
[3/7, 15:15] Vinothpandian: 2010 (10) SCC 469 : D velusamy vs D Patchaiammal : merely spending weekends together or a one night stand would not make it a domestic relationship in a matrimonial proceedings
[3/7, 15:15] Vinothpandian: 2012 (3) SCC 255 : JIK industries ltd vs Amarlal V jumani : compounding of an offence especially cheque dishonour case cannot be achieved indirectly by sanctioning of a scheme by company court
[3/7, 15:21] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) SCC 476 : union of india vs Ramesh gandhi : If a judgement is obtained by playing fraud on court is a nullity and is to be treated as non est by every court superior or inferior
[3/7, 16:42] Vinothpandian: 2000 (8) SCC 740 : Basavaraj R patil vs state of karnataka : Provisions of sec 313 CRPC are not meant to nail the accused to his disadvantage but are meant for his benefit
[3/7, 16:42] Vinothpandian: 2011 (14) SCC 615 : Punjab state warehousing corp vs sh durga ji traders : An order of exemption from personal appearance continues to be in force till it is revoked or recalled
[3/7, 16:42] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) DRTC 673 : K padma vs K Ramachandran & others : Property attached in favour of bank earlier to alleged agreement for sale , provisions of sec 64 of CPC not applicable
[3/7, 16:42] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC 609 SC : Metro exporters p ltd & another vs state bank of india : An international funds transfer may be subject to more than one law , an international funds transfer may be either onshore where either payers bank or payees bank is located in country of currency transfer , and offshore where neither bank is located in country of currency of transfer
[3/8, 16:21] Vinothpandian: 1984 (4) SCC 66 : OP kathpalia vs lakhmir singh : If refusal to condone delay results in grave miscarriage of justice , it would be a ground to condone delay
[3/8, 16:21] Vinothpandian: 1975 (2) SCC 840 : New india insurance co ltd vs shanti misra : discretion given by sec 5 of limitation act should not be defined or crystallised so as to convert a discretionary matter into a rigid rule of law
[3/8, 16:21] Vinothpandian: 1979 (4) SCC 365 : concord of india insurance co ltd vs nirmala devi : negligence of counsel has misled a litigant into delayed pursuit of his remedy , delay could be condoned
[3/8, 16:40] Vinothpandian: 2003 (2) SCC 473 : state of karnataka vs shariff : There is no provision or requirement of law that a dying declaration must necessarily be made before a magistrate
[3/8, 16:40] Vinothpandian: 2012 (12) SCC 120 : surinder kumar vs state of punjab : It is not obligatory that a dying declaration should be recorded in a question – answer form