Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 80 (1.69 seconds)
Documents citing Madholal Sindhu vs Asian Assurance Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 17 September, 1955

Cc No:3214/13 Smt. Jyoti Kalra vs Satinder Kumar Verma on 20 December, 2013

60.I have already noted in the preceding paras the settled legal position that Sections 118 and 139 NII Act introduce an exception to the general rule as to the burden of proof in criminal cases and shift the onus on to the accused. If the accused is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the complainant who would be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact. However, as the accused miserably failed to rebut the said presumtions, the onus never shifted upon the Complainant in the present case to prove the debt/liability or to prove the agreement Exh. CW1/A. The CC NO:3214/13 Smt. Jyoti Kalra vs Satinder Kumar Verma 28 decisions in AIR 1928 PC 38, AIR 1965 Ori 126 and (1965) 2 Cr.LJ 107 (supra), Madholal Sindhu Vs. Asian Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (1954) 56 BOMLR 147 (supra) and Dattatraya Vs. Rangnath Gopal Rao Kawathekar AIR 1971 SC 2548 (supra) relied upon by the accused would have been applicable only when the onus would have shited to the Complainant. That not being the case, the ratio of the above authorities also has no application to the facts of the present case.
Delhi District Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhima Tima Dhotre vs The Pioneer Chemical Co. on 23 June, 1967

In my opinion, the view taken by Bhagwati J. in Madholal Sindhu's case as well as by the Division Bench in the case of In the matter of Mr. D. and Mr. S., is contrary to the plain language of Sections 59 and 61 of the Evidence Act which in terms refer to "the contents" of documents, and is in violation of the fundamental rule of evidence that lies at the root of Sections 59 and 91 of the said Act that the contents of a document cannot be proved by oral evidence. Being bound by the decision of the Division Bench in the case of In the matter of Mr. D. and Mr. S., I must, however, follow the same and decline to admit the postcard marked "X" (for identification) in evidence.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Shri Shantilal Kesharmal Gandhi vs Shri Prabhakar Balkrishna Mahanubhav on 3 August, 2005

Co. Ltd. (supra) also does not support the petitioner's case, as there is ample material on the record to show that tenancy was for residential purpose and the Trial Court has invoked the provisions of Section 73 and not of Sections 64 and 67 of the Evidence Act. In the present case, not only the signature, but the contents of the documents in question are also proved.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - A V Mohta - Full Document

Cc No:3212/13 Smt. Jyoti Kalra vs Satinder Kumar Verma on 20 December, 2014

CW1/A. The decisions in AIR 1928 PC 38, AIR 1965 Ori 126 and (1965) 2 Cr.LJ 107 (supra), Madholal Sindhu Vs. Asian Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (1954) 56 BOMLR 147 (supra) and Dattatraya Vs. Rangnath Gopal Rao Kawathekar AIR 1971 SC 2548 (supra) relied upon by the accused would have been applicable only when the onus would have shited to the Complainant. That not being the case, the ratio of the above authorities also has no application to the facts of the present case.
Delhi District Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cc No:3213/12 Smt. Jyoti Kalra vs Tushar Verma on 20 December, 2013

56.I have already noted in the preceding paras the settled legal position that Sections 118 and 139 NI Act introduce an exception to the general rule as to the burden of proof in criminal cases and shift the onus on to the accused. If the accused is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the complainant who would be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact. However, as the accused miserably failed to rebut the said presumtions, the onus never shifted upon the Complainant in the present case to prove the debt/liability or to prove the agreement Exh. CW1/A. The decisions in AIR 1928 PC 38, AIR 1965 Ori 126 and (1965) 2 Cr.LJ 107 (supra), Madholal Sindhu Vs. Asian Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (1954) 56 BOMLR 147 (supra) and Dattatraya Vs. Rangnath Gopal Rao Kawathekar AIR 1971 SC 2548 (supra) relied upon by the accused would have been applicable only when the onus would have shited to the Complainant. That not being the case, the ratio of the above authorities also has no application to the facts of the present case.
Delhi District Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Basant Goel Proprietor Of Goel Medicos vs Health Care At Home India Pvt. Ltd on 30 March, 2026

Madholal Sindhu vs Asian Assurance Co. Ltd and Ors : In this case, the issue was not merely whether the contents of the documents not just being written by a person but also whether the contents of the documents were true. Thus, it was observed by the Hon'ble Bom HC that it could have been proved only by the person who was acquainted with the facts and has personal knowledge of the same and not by the person who had no personal knowledge about the contents of the documents.
Delhi District Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next