Monday, 9 April 2012

Law of Evidence - Proof of Private documents


Shalimar Chemical works Ltd versus Surendra Oil And Dal Mills – (2010) 8 SCC 423 – Para 15, 16.

Mandvi Co-op Bank – Nimesh – (2010) 4 MahLJ 220 – Para 26, 27.

Section 61 – document exhibited – cannot be questioned its admissibility at a later stage – Malay Kumar Ganguly versus Dr Sukumar Mukherjee – AIR 2010 SC 1162 – Paras 52, 53

Sections 61, 65 – O.12 Rules 1, 2, 2A, 3A – LIC of India versus Rampal Singh – 2010 (2) All MR 970 (SC) – Paras 25, 26, 27, 31 - *********

Exhibiting of carbon copy – admissibility – can be read in evidence – Dinesh Vasantrai Bhuta versus Vasantben Harvilas – 2012 (2) All MR 489 – Para 26

Documentary evidence – AIR 1972 SC 330; AIR 1956 SC 554; AIR 1972 SC 608; AIR 1968 Mad 341


Section 47 & 67.  Ordinary mode if proving  the documents is calling the person who executed the documents.  96 MLJ 730 SC. 

Mere proof of handwriting would not prove contents.  95 II LW 74. 

Marking of document will not prove the contents.  96 II LW 637. 


Section 63 – Copy of document procedure – Party should prove that copy was made from original and compared with original to admit copy as secondary evidence.  2001 (1) CTC 12. 

Section 75 – Private documents proof of contents of – only by direct oral evidence of who has executed the document – or by secondary evidence as permitted by Evidence Act – Al Hadi Badar Naseer Mohammed versus State of Maharashtra – 2010 All MR (Cri) 1568

EVIDENCE – RECORDING OF OBJECTION – AIR 2001 SC 1158


PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENT
Khatri vs State of Bihar AIR 1981 SC 1068


Documentary Evidence – Section 62 to 65 – (2013) 2 SCC 114

No comments:

Post a Comment