Vinothpandian: 2016 (1) DRTC 509 : sany heavy industry india pvt ltd vs tata capital ltd : section 3 of interest act confers on court to allow interest , further section 34 of CPC also empowers court to award interest on a money decree. Law tips

[12/23, 11:22] Vinothpandian: 2016 (1) DRTC 509 : sany heavy industry india pvt ltd vs tata capital ltd : section 3 of interest act confers on court to allow interest , further section 34 of CPC also empowers court to award interest on a money decree
[12/23, 11:22] Vinothpandian: 2015 (1) DRTC 79 : IDEB projects pvt ltd vs HDFC bank ltd : Regarding cross examination of a witness in drt , satisfaction of tribunal about necessity being crucial to making of an order for cross examination of a witness ( DRT rules 1993 rule 12 (6)
[12/23, 11:22] Vinothpandian: 2021 ( 3) CTC 920 SC : sanjiv prakash vs seema kukreja : Held court in an application under section 11 of the arbitration and coincilation act 1996 not to conduct a mini trial so as to usurp jurisdiction of arbitral tribunal
[12/23, 11:22] Vinothpandian: 2021 (3) CTC 59 : Padmanabhan K vs Assistant commissioner / zonal officer zone 5 corporation of chennai : compassionate appointment cannot be demanded as a matter of right
[12/24, 11:15] Vinothpandian: 2018 (5) CTC 717 : Ganesan K vs Government of tamil nadu rep by its chief secretary : motive of giving or securing bribe relating to promise of favourable official act is sufficient to constitute bribe
[12/24, 11:15] Vinothpandian: 2017 (1) CTC 414 ; satyapal anand vs state of MP SC : functions of registrar is purely administrative in nature and not quasi judicial function ( registration act 1908 sec 34 )
[12/24, 11:15] Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) CTC 1 ( DB) : AK Balaji vs government of india : foreign law firms or foreign lawyers cannot practice profession of law in india either on litgation or non ltigation side unless they fulfil requirements of acts and rules
[12/24, 11:15] Vinothpandian: 2017 (1) CTC 752 : muralidharan K vs chief manager Repco home finance ltd : chief judicial magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass orders under section 14 of SARFASI when mortgaged property is not situated within territorial jurisdiction of a metropolitan city
[12/24, 11:15] Vinothpandian: 2004 (4) crimes 277 : V Raja kumari vs P subbarama naidu : In a proceedings under NI act non – service of notice is not a ground for rejecting complaint even before it is numbered
[12/24, 11:15] Vinothpandian: 2006 (2) SCC 677 : Ramesh kumari vs state ( NCT of delhi ) : genuineness or credibility of information not a condition precedent for registration of a case that can only be considered after registration of the case
[12/26, 11:44] Vinothpandian: AIR 1997 AP 53 : Habeeb khan vs valasula devi : order 6 rule 2 CPC 1908 : Evidence presented before court should be according to the pleadings , irrelevant evidence should be avoided during specific pleadings
[12/26, 11:44] Vinothpandian: 2015 (4) SCC 164 ; Union of india vs SN maity : In matters pertaining to departmental proceedings , merely because words ” until further orders ” are used would not confer allowance on employer to act with caprice
[12/26, 11:44] Vinothpandian: 2012 (2) DRTC 351 : Gulshan Rai jain & others vs DRAT Allahabad ; DRT / DRAT cannot keep appeal pending for indefinite period under garb of interim orders , non – disposal of appeal within statutory period shall frustrate very object of statute ( SARFASI act )
[12/26, 11:44] Vinothpandian: 2016 (2) DRTC 333 : kamal kumar bhatu vs authorised officer allahabad bank : With regard to property to be sold under SARFASI act under auction , deposit of 10% as earnest money enabling a person to participate in bid process is not an amount towards sale price
[12/26, 11:44] Vinothpandian: 2015 (1) DRTC 721 : veena textiles ltd & another vs authorised officer IFCI ltd : writ petition against order made under section 14(3) of SARFASI act by magistrate held maintainable