Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) CTC 14 ( DB) : vijayalakshmi shanmugam vs chief secretary govt of tamil nadu : All wrongful acts though intentional would not constitute malice unless it is establised by appropriate pleading and proof

[1/31, 15:04] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) CTC 14 ( DB) : vijayalakshmi shanmugam vs chief secretary govt of tamil nadu : All wrongful acts though intentional would not constitute malice unless it is establised by appropriate pleading and proof
[2/1, 15:57] Vinothpandian: 2013 (4) CCC 315 SC ; kailash vs Nanhku & others : Purpose of providing time schedule for filing written statement under order 8 rule 1 of CPC is to expedite and not to scuttle hearing , provision being in domain of procedural law has to be held directory and not mandatory
[2/1, 15:57] Vinothpandian: 2016 (1) CCC 510 : Notified area council vs Titilagarh club : order 8 rule 9 CPC prohibits any pleadings subsequent to written statement of a defendant being filed other than by way of defence to a set off or counterclaim except by leave of court and upon such terms as court thinks fit
[2/1, 15:57] Vinothpandian: 2008 (1) SCC 683 : divisional manager , aravali golf club vs chander hass : If there is law , judges can certainly enforce it , but judges cannot create a law and seek to enforce it
[2/1, 15:57] Vinothpandian: 2017 (3) CCC 298 : KS varghese & others vs st peters & paul syrian orth : An act may affect law and order but not public order just as an act may affect public order but not the security of the state ( art 25 constitution of india )
[2/1, 15:57] 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
[2/1, 15:57] Vinothpandian: 1974 (1) SCC 167 : Pyarali K Tejani vs MR dange ; In food adulteration related cases , strict liability is the rule
[2/1, 15:57] 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 )
[2/1, 15:57] Vinothpandian: 2008 (2) SCC 561 : onkar nath mishra vs state ( NCT of delhi ) : Provisions of sec 498 A IPC should not be used as a device to achieve oblique motive
[2/1, 15:57] Vinothpandian: 2007 (7) SCC 309 : MCD vs qimat Rai gupta : court should not add or delete words in statute

You may also like...