Vinothpandian: AIR 1984 SC 1233 : Punjab singh vs state of haryana : In a criminal trial proceedings , when there is inconsistency between medical evidence

[12/18, 09:38] Vinothpandian: AIR 1984 SC 1233 : Punjab singh vs state of haryana : In a criminal trial proceedings , when there is inconsistency between medical evidence and direct testimony , if the direct evidence is satisfactory , the same cannot be rejected on hypothetical medical evidence
[12/18, 09:38] Vinothpandian: 1985 (4) SCC 80 : Pattipati venkaiah vs state of Andhra pradesh : medical science is not yet so perfect so to determine the exact time of death , nor can be the same be determined in a computerised or mathematical fashion so as to accurate to the last second
[12/18, 10:29] Vinothpandian: 2013 (2) DRTC 114 : Nippo foods vs state of punjab & others : In a suit for recovery of bank dues , liability of guarantor dependent upon liability of borrower , principal borrower cannot be permitted to say that amount should be recovered from guarantor and not from principal borrower
[12/18, 11:01] Vinothpandian: 2015 (2) DRTC 836 : Hdfc bank ltd vs prestige educational trust : section 13(4) of SARFASI act not conferred any power on secured creditor to take possession of any assets other than secured assets
[12/20, 09:46] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) DRTC 302 : Bank of baroda vs sarvottam namkin pvt ltd & others : In DRT recovery suits though court has discretion to award interest other than contractual rate of interest , it should be supported with reasons ( sec 20 RDDBFI act 1993 )
[12/20, 09:46] Vinothpandian: 2016 (2) DRTC 128 : state bank of india vs veetee fine foods ltd : In a proceeding before DRT , castigating of bank officials and passing disparaging remarks need to be avoided , principles of public accountability made applicable with all its vigour , any use of disparaging remarks acts contrary to rule of natural justice
[12/20, 14:28] Vinothpandian: 2014 (2) DRTC 420 : Midex global pvt ltd vs state bank of india : Regarding default of bank loans , inclusion of name of borrower in list of wilful defaulter decision on classification of wilful defaulter should be well documented and supported by requisite evidence , decision should clearly spell out reason for which borrower was declared as wilful defaulter
[12/20, 14:41] 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 )
[12/21, 15:10] Vinothpandian: 2006 (3) SCC ( cri ) 30 : MS narayana menon @ mani vs state of kerala : If a cheque is issued for security or for any purpose other than a discharge of a debt or liability , penal provisions of sec 138 , negotiable instruments act not attracted
[12/21, 15:23] Vinothpandian: 2019 (2) scale 698 : Bir singh vs mukesh kumar : Even a blank cheque leaf voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused towards some payment would attract presumption under section 139 of NI act in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt
[12/21, 15:23] Vinothpandian: AIR 2010 SC 2835 : central bank of india vs Asian global ltd : merely being a director of a company would not make a person liable for an offence under sec 138 NI act that may have been committed by company
[12/21, 15:37] Vinothpandian: 2013 (5) SCC 741 : Natasha singh vs CBI : An application filed under sec 311 of CRPC must be allowed if fresh evidence is being produced to facilitate a just decision
[12/22, 15:48] Vinothpandian: 2013 CRI LJ 2973 : Prem kaur vs state of punjab : In a judgement absence of sound reasons is not a mere irregularity but a patent illegality
[12/22, 15:48] Vinothpandian: 2015(1) SCC 788 : PS meherhomji vs KT vijay kumar : judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment
[12/22, 15:48] Vinothpandian: 2012 (1) SCC 476 : Union of india vs Ramesh gandhi : If a judgement is obtained by playing fraud on court is considered to be nullity in the eye of law
[12/22, 15:48] 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 law and seek to enforce it