Vinothpandian: 2016 (1) SCC ( cri ) 544 : N sunkanna vs state of Andhra pradesh : Mere possession and recovery of currency notes from accused without proof of demand will not constitute an offence for illegal gratification

[11/16, 11:19] Vinothpandian: 2016 (1) SCC ( cri ) 544 : N sunkanna vs state of Andhra pradesh : Mere possession and recovery of currency notes from accused without proof of demand will not constitute an offence for illegal gratification
[11/16, 11:19] Vinothpandian: AIR 1960 SC 866 : RP kapoor vs state of punjab : court would be reluctant to interfere with criminal proceedings at an interlocutory stage
[11/16, 16:08] Vinothpandian: 2008 (1) SCC 683 : divisional manager , aravali golf club vs chander hass : If there is law , judges can certainly enforce it , but judges cannot create a law and seek to enforce it
[11/16, 16:08] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) SCC 476 : union of india vs Ramesh gandhi : If a judgement obtained by playing fraud on court is a nullity and is to be treated as non est by every court superior or inferior
[11/17, 09:42] Vinothpandian: 2014 (4) CTC 528 : sundaram cooperative credit societies ltd vs Associated clearing and forwarding agencies : Held a statutory principle can be waived unless a statutory bar exists against waiver
[11/17, 09:42] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) CTC 639 : sidharth S vs P lalitha kumari : Power under order 38 rule 5 CPC 1908 is drastic and extraordinary , such power should not be exercised mechanically or merely for asking
[11/17, 09:42] Vinothpandian: 2014( 4) CTC 467 : Haryana state coop supply and marketing federation ltd vs jayam textiles : As per criminal jurisprudence substantial justice ought not to be denied merely on account of procedural irregularities
[11/17, 09:46] Vinothpandian: 2014 (5) CTC 689 : Interbulk trading SA vs Adam and coal resources pvt ltd : when one of reliefs sought can be maintained , even though other reliefs are barred , suit cannot be rejected in part and decision can be taken only after trial ( order 7 rule 11 CPC 1908 )
[11/18, 09:47] Vinothpandian: 2012 (6) CTC 481 : kamala vs presiding officer cum chairperson : In regard to a perspective legal heirs of deceased partner who inherits firms property preferring an appeal as against recovery certificate issued by DRT , held such legal heirs fall within category of persons from whom debt is due to bank , such legal heirs are required to comply with pre – deposit condition of appellate tribunal ( sec 21 RDDBFI act 1993 )
[11/18, 09:47] Vinothpandian: 2013 (6) CTC 353 : lalita kumari vs govt of UP SC : Refusal to register FIR by police is clear violation of rights of victims ( sec 154 CRPC 1973 )
[11/18, 10:31] Vinothpandian: 2013 (6) CTC 227 : omprakash vs laxminarayan : Recitals in document may not be conclusive proof but shall prevail when deciding admissibilty of document
[11/18, 12:10] Vinothpandian: 2012 (4) crimes 78 : shyam babu vs state of UP : In a murder case merely because other co – accused died due to their natural death , there is no reason to exonerate surviving accused
[11/18, 12:14] Vinothpandian: 2011 (4) SCC 596 : kanaka Rekha naik vs manoj kumar pradhan : law does not make any distinction between representatives of people and others accused of criminal offences
[11/19, 09:27] Vinothpandian: 2014 (1) CTC 561 : srinivasan PN ( deceased ) vs state of tamil nadu : Erection of permanent structures / statutes / arch would offend fundamental right to move in public roads
[11/19, 09:27] Vinothpandian: 2014 (4) CTC 583 : Easwari vs parvathi : High court can interfere in second appeal when findings of courts below are not supported by evidence ( sec 100 CPC 1908 )
[11/19, 09:27] Vinothpandian: 2014 (3) CTC 414 : Abudeen ASM @ jainulabudeen vs shakila banu : In matters relating to custody of minor child , welfare of child is paramount and would prevail over personal laws
[11/19, 09:27] Vinothpandian: 2015 (5) CTC 45 : Tim boyd , international president vs kesiraju krishna phani : cause of action is bundle of facts including some acts done by defendant which if traversed , it would be necessary for plaintiff to prove in order to sustain relief sought by him ( order 7 rule 11 CPC 1908 )