Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) DRTC 691 : Punjab national bank vs consumer disputes redressal forum & others : section 34 of the SARFASI act expressly barred jurisdiction of not only civil courts but also of other authorities which would include consumer forum from granting injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken under SARFASI act

[17/02, 10:39] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) DRTC 691 : Punjab national bank vs consumer disputes redressal forum & others : section 34 of the SARFASI act expressly barred jurisdiction of not only civil courts but also of other authorities which would include consumer forum from granting injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken under SARFASI act
[17/02, 10:39] Vinothpandian: 2005 (6) SCC 109 : Rajendra sail vs madhya pradesh high court bar association : Judgements of courts are public documents and can be commented upon , analysed and criticized but it has to be in dignified manner without attributing motives
[17/02, 10:39] Vinothpandian: 2013 (1) SCC ( cri ) 438 : sunil clifford daniel ( Dr ) vs state of punjab : mere act of absconding on the part of the accused alone does not necessarily lead to a final conclusion regarding the guilt of the accused in a proceedings under sec 302 IPC
[17/02, 10:39] Vinothpandian: 2019 (6) CTC 584 : UC surendranath vs Mamballys bakery : Held wilful disobedience being in nature of criminal liability must be proved to satisfaction of court that disobedience was not mere disobedience but wilful disobedience , disobedience ” not wilful does not warrant invoking order 39 rule 2 – A CPC 1908
[17/02, 10:39] Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) CTC 481 : Abul kalam azad AL vs AL jawaharlal rep by its power agent A sowkath ALi : Award of lok adalat can be challenged only by filing writ petition under art 226 or 227 of constitution on very limited grounds
[17/02, 10:39] Vinothpandian: 2012 (9) SCC 532 : Gajoo vs state of uttarakhand : A witness may be called interested only when he or she derives some benefit from result of litigation