Vinothpandian: 2011 (7) SCC 69 : Amar singh vs union of india : Litigant who comes to court and invoke its writ jurisdiction must come with clean hand , litigant cannot prevaricate and take inconsistent positions[05/04, 15:49] Vinothpandian: 2020 (5) CTC 448 : chenrayan vs kaveri ( died ) : Mere long and continuous possession of immovable for over twelve years does not convert possession into prescriptive title
[05/04, 15:49] Vinothpandian: 2011 (7) SCC 69 : Amar singh vs union of india : Litigant who comes to court and invoke its writ jurisdiction must come with clean hand , litigant cannot prevaricate and take inconsistent positions
[05/04, 15:49] Vinothpandian: 2020 (5) CTC 448 : chenrayan vs kaveri ( died ) : Mere long and continuous possession of immovable for over twelve years does not convert possession into prescriptive title
[05/04, 15:49] Vinothpandian: 2020 (5) CTC 762 : Bhagwan singh vs state of uttarkand : Rise in celebratory firing as a status symbol , unacceptable and potential cause of fatal accidents
[05/04, 15:49] Vinothpandian: 2019 (7) SCC 797 : shashi bhushan prasad vs inspector general central industrial security force : Two proceedings criminal and departmental proceedings are entirely different , they operate in different fields and have different objectives , object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on an offender, purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with service rules
[05/04, 15:49] Vinothpandian: 2009 (1) RCR ( criminal ) SC : RB Ramlingam vs RB bhuvaneswari : delay of 568 days in filing special leave petition condoned on the ground that review application against judgement of single judge remained pending in high court ( art 136 of the constitution of india )
[05/04, 15:49] Vinothpandian: 2021 ( 3) CTC 920 SC : sanjiv prakash vs seema kukreja : Held court in an application under section 11 of the arbitration and coincilation act 1996 not to conduct a mini trial so as to usurp jurisdiction of arbitral tribunal
![[12/13, 17:01] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1734898695219376343?t=BIKJw-dPcZEdx1_lDYlodw&s=08 [12/13, 17:01] sekarreporter1: HC cannot deduct 2% towards investment ‘services’ Accordingly, in the above discussions narrated above, this Court directs as follows: (i)Registry is not entitled to deduct 2% commission and 0.2% as Audit Fee for each and every deposits made in the Nationalized Banks as per the orders of this Court. (ii) Articles 37, 38 and 39 could be invoked only when the amount has been invested in the Government Securities as discussed above. (iii) In the absence of the amount has been transferred from the CCD account and invested in Government Securities, the Registry has no power to deduct 2% commission and 0.2% Audit Fee. (iv) And the petitioner is certainly entitled to all the monies deducted in this regard and the Registry is directed to repay such amounts to the petitioner. 12.12.2023 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No Speaking / Non-speaking Order TK/dhk To 1.The Superintending Engineer National Highways Salem Circle Omalur Main Road, Narosithipatty, Salem – 636 004. 2.Syndicate Bank Transport Bhavan 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi – 110 001. 3.Registrar General Madras High Court Chennai – 600 104. N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. TK/dhk E.P.NOS.72 AND 73 OF 2019](https://sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)