Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) DRTC 658 : Tushar P shah vs IARC p ltd : With regard to powers of Debt recovery tribunal to execute decree where secured assets situated exclusively in another state , decree may be executed either by the court which passed it or by court to which it is sent for execution

[12/19, 11:13] Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) DRTC 658 : Tushar P shah vs IARC p ltd : With regard to powers of Debt recovery tribunal to execute decree where secured assets situated exclusively in another state , decree may be executed either by the court which passed it or by court to which it is sent for execution
[12/19, 11:13] 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
[12/19, 11:13] Vinothpandian: 2016 (2) DRTC 289 : sundaram.BNP paribas home finance ltd malappuram vs nisha : Recovery proceedings initiated under SARFASI.act , only prayer in writ court that petitioner may be permitted to clear outstanding amount due to bank in easy instalments , writ.court exercised its discretion in granting ten instalments to pay entire outstanding amount along with interest accrued , interest of bank protected
[12/19, 11:13] Vinothpandian: 2017 (1) CCC 532 : Buddha jagadeeswara rao vs sri ravi enterprises : courts obliged to intimate registrar office after cancellation of an instrument of transfer of any immovable property , section.49 of the indian registration act permits admission of unregistered documents in evidence for collateral purposes , but it should be duly stamped
[12/19, 11:13] Vinothpandian: 2017 (2) DRTC 629 : Panther fin cap & management services ltd vs bank of india : Debt recovery tribunal is not a civil court and provisions of CPC cannot be straight way made applicable to proceedings in respect of recovery of amount by recovery officer exercising powers under RDDBFI act
[12/19, 11:13] Vinothpandian: 2013 (1) CTC 399 : Gian chand & brothers and another vs Rattan lal @ Rattan singh : Burden of proving fraud , undue influence or misrepresentation lies on the person making it , while burden of proof never shifts , onus of proof shifts , 2006 (5) SCC 558 relied upon
[12/19, 11:13] Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) DRTC 104 : mohinder pal singh vs state bank of india : section 13 (7) of the SARFASI act authorises secured creditor to claim charges , costs, and expenses which are actually incurred
[12/19, 11:13] Vinothpandian: 2004 (12) SCC 336 : Damodar vs state of Rajasthan : Any telephonic information about commission of cognizable offence irrespective of nature and details of such information cannot be treated as FIR
[12/19, 11:13] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) DRTC 748 : S Anandan & others vs state bank of india : loan contracted for poultry purposes , bank cannot charge interest at compound rate from date of suit , since it is borrowed for agricultural industrial purpose only ( sec 34 RDDBFI act 1993 )