Vinothpandian: 2015 (1) SCC 347 : state of UP vs Arvind kumar srivastava : Entitlement to benefit of judgement in rem with intention to benefit all similarily situated persons irrespective of whether they had approached court or not , not affected by delay and laches

[8/4, 10:32] Vinothpandian: 2015 (1) SCC 347 : state of UP vs Arvind kumar srivastava : Entitlement to benefit of judgement in rem with intention to benefit all similarily situated persons irrespective of whether they had approached court or not , not affected by delay and laches
[8/4, 10:32] Vinothpandian: 2014 (14) SCC 77 : state of Rajasthan vs surendra mohnot : Erroneous concession by counsel pertaining to position in law , held there can be no estoppel against law
[8/4, 10:32] Vinothpandian: 2013(1) crimes 208 : lokesh kirankumar shah vs shraddha lokesh shah : once legal provision has been interpreted by supreme court of india after considering all aspects of matter such interpretation made by supreme court would be binding on all courts within the territory of india
[8/4, 10:32] 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
[8/4, 10:32] Vinothpandian: 2016(1) MLJ ( cri ) 1 : V vinod kumar vs V Arunadevi : Any observation made by high court ,while disposing of habeas corpus petition would not curtail the rights of an aggrieved person to seek for interim custody of child under section 21 of the domestic violence act
[8/4, 10:32] Vinothpandian: 2009 CRILJ 1742 : state of punjab vs pritam chand : merely because an act has a civil profile is not sufficient to denude it of its criminal outfit