Vinothpandian: 2014 (1) DRTC 627 : Jks infra structure pvt ltd vs Edelweiss asset reconstruction co ltd :

[9/23, 09:34] Vinothpandian: 2014 (1) DRTC 627 : Jks infra structure pvt ltd vs Edelweiss asset reconstruction co ltd : once notice under section 13(2) of SARFASI act is issued , said notice constitutes attachment of secured assets
[9/23, 09:34] Vinothpandian: 2013(1) DRTC 761 : Ratan kumar & others vs state bank of india : Any third party right created after issuance of notice under section 13(2) of SARFASI act has to be ignored
[9/23, 09:46] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC 426 : Madhuri devi vs dena bank : once objection is filed by the borrower against notice issued under section 13(2) of SARFASI act , bank is obliged to file reply to same under section 13 ( 3 – A) SARFASI act
[9/23, 09:46] Vinothpandian: 2015 (1) DRTC 489 : smt shadhna shukla vs debts recovery appellate tribunal : In pursuance to auction under SARFASI act , after accepting bid and confirming sale as per provisions of SARFASI act , auction purchaser becomes absolute owner of that property
[9/23, 09:59] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) DRTC 505 : jose Antony thottassery vs Anil kuruvilla & others : SARFASI act does not contain any provision enabling opposite party to raise a plea of set off or counter claim
[9/24, 11:32] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) DRTC 841 : K sami vs branch manager , bank of india : mere decision.of financial institution.to approach magistrate under sec 14 would also constitute a measure under sec 13 (4) of the SARFASI act
[9/24, 11:32] Vinothpandian: 2017 (2) DRTC 277 : Bhagwati printers pvt ltd vs IDBI bank ltd : An order rejecting or granting an aplication for condonation of delay in filing an application under sec 17 SARFASI 2002 is an order under sec 17 of the SARFASI act and it would be appealable under sec 18 of the act
[9/24, 11:32] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) DRTC 525 : Bank of baroda vs Ranjan chetia : suit in question involving allegations of fraud against defendants before DRT , held allegations can be tried by civil court only , not by DRT which has no power to pass decree but can only issue recovery certificates
[9/25, 10:58] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC 404 : Bobby sebastin & another vs ICICI bank and another : only an officer of bank as specified by board of directors can issue a notice of demand under sec 13(2) of the SARFASI.act as contemplated under rule 2(b) of the security interest rules
[9/25, 10:58] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) DRTC 86 : Union bank of india vs Rajendra wadhwa & others : As per rule 8(2) of the security interest rules possession notice is to be published in leading newspapers not later than seven days from date of taking possession
[9/25, 10:58] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC 27 SC : mathew varghese vs Amrita kumari : section 13 (8) engrafted in SARFASI act primarily with a view to protect right of a borrower , such a ownership right being a constitutional right protected under art 300 A of the constitution
[9/27, 09:41] Vinothpandian: 2013 (1) SCC ( cri ) 438 ; sunil clifford daniel vs state of punjab : It is obligatory on the part of the accused while being examined under section 313 CRPC to furnish some explanation with respect to the incriminating circumstances associated with him , court must take note of such explanation even in a case of circumstantial evidence to decide as to whether or not the chain of circumstances is complete
[9/27, 09:41] Vinothpandian: 2011 (13) SCC 744 : Amit singh vs state of maharastra : With regard to claim of juvenility , certificate issued by school authorities is admissible in evidence
[9/27, 09:41] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) SCC 520 : Anita malhotra vs Apparel export promotion council : In a complaint under NI act pertaining to a company , mere bold statement that he or she was in charge of and was responsible to the company for conduct of its business is not sufficient
[9/27, 10:33] Vinothpandian: 2013 (2) RCR ( cri ) 839 : Mariappan V vs state of TN : Existence of circumstances bringing case within exception under section 84 IPC lies on the accused
[9/27, 10:33] Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) crimes 141 : state of orissa vs ujjal kumar burdhan : unless a case of gross abuse of power is made out against those incharge of investigation , high court should avoid interfering at a prematured or preliminary stage of investigation.
[9/28, 09:37] Vinothpandian: 2018 (16) SCC 408 : shafin jahan vs Asokan KM and others : Parental love cannot be allowed to fluster the right of choice of an adult in choosing a man to whom she gets married
[9/28, 09:37] Vinothpandian: 2018 CRI LJ 4298 : sunil CB singh baghel and others vs state of maharastra : With regard to media reporting of criminal trial , sessions judge has no power to pass order banning print , electronic and social media from.publishing posting and reporting court proceedings , it is only high court and supreme court that have power to pass postponement orders in exceptional circumstances for a brief period
[9/28, 10:00] Vinothpandian: 2018 (2) crimes 225 : Asian resurfacing of road agency pvt ltd vs CBI : mandate of speedy justice applies to the prevention of corruption act
[9/28, 10:00] Vinothpandian: 2018 CRI LJ 1557 : khumukcham nikita devi vs state of manipur : A victim can engage a lawyer of her choice to assist the prosecution with the permission of the court ( sec 301 CRPC 1973 )
[9/28, 10:32] Vinothpandian: 2014 (5) SCC 181 : sujoy kumar chanda vs damayanti majhi : unless facts disclose a designed effort to frustrate the cause of justice with malafide , harsh comments should not be made on subordinate courts
[9/29, 10:07] Vinothpandian: 2018 (2) SCC 430 : Dinubhai boghabhai solanki vs state of gujarat : In a criminal proceedings fair trial is possible only when witnesses are truthful
[9/29, 10:07] Vinothpandian: 2018 (1) crimes 125 : shathi mohammad vs state of himachal pradesh : Electronic record can be proved only as per section 65- B of the evidence act
[9/29, 10:14] Vinothpandian: 2018 CRILJ 2632 : gokul alias gokula krishnan and others vs state : power of investigating agency under section 173 (8) CRPC has widest possible sanctity and cannot be restricitive in nature
[9/30, 09:41] Vinothpandian: 2018 (2) crimes 255 : mahesh kumar vs state of bihar : In a recovery of ganja case , court would not be authorised to detain the accused beyond sixty days
[9/30, 09:41] Vinothpandian: 2018 CRI LJ 2207 : Kasimuddin Ahammad and others vs Rajjak Ali and another : The magistrate has the power to direct for further investigation only after filing of the police report in terms of section 173 ( 6) CRPC
[9/30, 09:54] Vinothpandian: 2010 (13) SCC 657 : sunil kumar sambu dayal gupta vs state of maharastra : Appellate court should not interfere with acquittal order passed by trial court merely because two views are possible in a given case
[10/1, 11:59] Vinothpandian: 2018 (1) SCC 638 : B sunita vs state of telengana : success of administration of justice to a great extent depends on successful regulation of legal profession
[10/1, 11:59] Vinothpandian: 2016 (1) SCC ( cri ) 386 : Nizam vs state of Rajasthan : Absence of proof of motive only demands careful scrutiny and deeper analysis of evidence adduced by prosecution
[10/1, 11:59] Vinothpandian: 2012 (8) SCC 537 : state of UP vs sanjay kumar : life imprisonment cannot be equivalent to imprisonment for 14 years or 20 years , rather it always meant as the whole natural life
[10/1, 11:59] Vinothpandian: 2015 (6) SCC 268 : Raj singh vs state of haryana : law does not confer a right of self defence on a man when he himself was aggressor
[10/3, 05:30] 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
[10/3, 05:30] Vinothpandian: 2014 (4) CCC 99 : Rajal @ suman vs state of Rajasthan : female child despite gaining majority is entitled to receive maintainence from her father till date of her marriage ( sec 125 CRPC 1973 )
[10/3, 05:30] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) CCC 414 : Parasagani venkaiah & another vs Pandi prasad : Records prepared by investigating officer in criminal case cannot be looked into by the accused , except for purposes to mark as contradictions or omissions during trial ( sec 162 CRPC 1973 )
[10/3, 05:36] 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
[10/4, 09:45] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC 1 SC : Harshad govardhan sondagar vs IARC ltd : A lease of secured asset made by borrower after he receives notice under sec 13 (2) of SARFASI act from secured creditor intending to enforce that secured asset will not be valid lease
[10/4, 09:45] 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 )
[10/4, 09:53] 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 )
[10/4, 11:09] 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
[10/6, 05:22] Vinothpandian: 2019 (3) MLJ 236 : ICOMM Tele ltd vs punjab state water supply & sewerage board : Terms of invitation to tender being in realm of contract not open to judicial scrutiny unless they are arbitrary , discriminatory or actuated by malice
[10/6, 05:22] 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
[10/6, 05:22] 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 )