Category: Evidence Act

Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 32(3) and 32(5) – Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is Relevant -The Court found inconsistencies in the respondents’ arguments and relied on evidence indicating a joint family business – The Court applied the principle of preponderance of probability and the Indian Evidence Act to assess the joint nature of the business – The Supreme Court concluded that the properties were joint family assets and should be partitioned accordingly. Cases Referred

2024 INSC 283 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VITTHALRAO MAROTIRAO NAVKHARE — Appellant Vs. NANIBAI (DEAD), THROUGH LRS, AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay…

Evidence Act – Sections 40-43 – Once information is given by an accused, the same information cannot be used, even if voluntarily made by a co-accused who is in custody. Section 27 of the Evidence Act does apply to joint disclosures, but this is not one such case.[14] This was precisely the reason given by the trial court to acquit the co-accused. Even if Section 8 of the Evidence Act is to apply, it would not have been possible to convict the co-accused.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PERUMAL RAJA @ PERUMAL — Appellant Vs. STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and S. V. N.…

Stamp Act 1899 – Section 35 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 65 – Unstamped document – Secondary evidence – If a document that is required to be stamped is not sufficiently stamped, then the position of law is well settled that a copy of such document as secondary evidence cannot be adduced

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIJAY — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 311 – Evidence Act, 1972 – Section 65B – Re-summon of material witness and permission to produce the report and certificate under Section 65B of the Act – 2008 Bangalore Bomb Blasts Case – Delay of six years in producing the certificate – Certificate under 65-B of the Act can be produced at any stage if the trial is not over

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF KARNATAKA — Appellant Vs. T. NASEER @ NASIR @ THANDIANTAVIDA NASEER @ UMARHAZI @ HAZI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…

Certified copy of sale deed – Admissibility – Certified copy given under Section 57 of the Registration Act shall be admissible for the purpose of proving the contents of its original document – Certified copy issued thereunder is not a copy of the original document, but is a copy of the registration entry which is itself a copy of the original and is a public document under Section 74(2) of the Evidence Act and Sub-section (5) thereof, makes it admissible in evidence for proving the contents of its original.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH APPAIYA — Appellant Vs. ANDIMUTHU@ THANGAPANDI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 14630…

Evidence Act, 1872 – Ss 4 and 18 – Testimony of a child witness – Before taking the testimony of a minor, it is the responsibility of the Judicial Officer to ask preliminary questions to ensure that the minor can comprehend and respond rationally & record the preliminary questions and answers for review by the Appellate Court to assess the Trial Court’s opinion accurately.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRADEEP — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 54 – Registration Act, 1908 – Section 17 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 67 – Transfer of ownership – Where a deed of sale had been duly executed and registered, its delivery and payment of consideration have been endorsed thereon it would amount to a full transfer of ownership so as to entitle its purchaser to maintain a suit for possession of the property sold

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DAMODHAR NARAYAN SAWALE (D) THROUGH LRS. — Appellant Vs. SHRI TEJRAO BAJIRAO MHASKE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T.…

Evidence Act, 1872 – Ss 101 and 106 – Burden of proof – Burden of proof is always with the prosecution – – Section 106 of the Act is an exception to the rule which is Section 101 of the Act, and it comes into play only in a limited sense where the evidence is of a nature which is especially within the knowledge of that person and then the burden of proving that fact shifts upon him that person.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DINESH KUMAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.530…

You missed

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 – Sections 3 and 4 – Electricity Act – Section 14(b) – Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, deemed to be a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, is required to make an application for a distribution license and comply with the conditions set out in the Electricity Rules and Regulations. – The appeal challenges the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decision to require an appellant to infuse additional capital as a condition for being identified as a deemed distribution licensee – The court questioned whether a SEZ developer is ipso facto a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application under section 14 of the Electricity Act – The appellant argued that they are automatically a deemed distribution licensee by virtue of the 2010 Notification and that the conditions imposed by TSERC were in excess of jurisdiction – The respondents argued that the appellant must comply with the 2005 and 2013 Regulations and that TSERC is empowered to impose conditions to assess credit-worthiness – The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of additional capital infusion imposed by TSERC – The court reasoned that the appellant must apply to be recognized as a deemed licensee but is not subject to the additional capital requirements of regulation 12 and rule 3(2) – The court concluded that the appellant is required to make an application as per the 2013 Regulations, and the condition to infuse additional capital is not justified.