Vinothpandian: 2015 (1) CCC 183 SC : punjab state power corporation ltd vs punjab state electricity regulatory commission : interest of consumers to be balanced with recovery of cost of electricity in a reasonable manner ( electricity act

[8/16, 13:46] Vinothpandian: 2015 (1) CCC 183 SC : punjab state power corporation ltd vs punjab state electricity regulatory commission : interest of consumers to be balanced with recovery of cost of electricity in a reasonable manner ( electricity act 2003 sec 61 ( g) )
[8/16, 13:46] Vinothpandian: 2016 (1) DRTC 270 : Pushpinder kaur vs punjab and sindh bank : Held absence of counsel due to strike call cannot be a legal and valid or sufficient ground for recalling order passed dismissing appeal for non – prosecution
[8/16, 13:46] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) DRTC 729 ; kotak mahindra bank ltd vs kothari industrial corporation : If tribunals and subordinate courts are allowed to function without following binding observations of superior courts there will be judicial chaos
[8/16, 13:46] Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) MWN ( cri ) 1 ( DB ) : state rep by inspector of police vs VP pandi : facts indisputably widely known to public can be taken judicial notice of by court
[8/16, 13:46] Vinothpandian: 2017 (2) DRTC 784 : Dipankar chakraborty vs Allahabad bank : sec 19 RDDBFI act : Pendency of proceeding before DRT under RDDBFI.act will not save period of limitation for a proceeding under SARFASI act , if proceeding under SARFASI act is by itself barred by laws of limitation
[8/16, 13:46] Vinothpandian: 2016 (2) DRTC 128 : state bank of india vs Veetee fine foods ltd : When bank or parties seek stamp of approval of compromise or settlement , then tribunal would be competent to examine said settlement or compromise in terms of sec 19 ( 20- A ) of RDDBFI act
[8/16, 13:46] Vinothpandian: 2008 (4) SCC 300 : krishna kumar Birla vs Rajendra singh ( para 124) : what could be done and has not been done by a court of equity does not create a precedent , it does not even have a persusaive value