Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 132 (0.98 seconds)
Documents citing Iqbal Basith vs N. Subbalakshmi . on 14 December, 2020

Sri H Basavaraju vs Smt Jayalakshmi S Gupta on 12 November, 2021

While addressing the arguments, learned counsel Sri.Parashuram R.Hattarakihal counsel for plaintiff strenuously urged that there is no serious dispute with regard to title. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in IQBAL BASITH AND OTHERS VS. N. SUBBALAKSHMI AND OTHERS reported in (2021) 2 SCC 718 and sought to urge that the defendants have not seriously objected the title. A feeble and vague objection was raised. The defendants have not raised genuine objection.
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - J Mulimani - Full Document

Acting Through Its Authorised ... vs Delex Cargo India Pvt. Ltd on 21 January, 2023

41. Supreme Court in the case of Iqbal Basith & Ors. vs N. Subbalakshmi & Ors. (supra) relied upon the case of Iswar Bhai C. Patel vs Harihar Behera, (1999) 3 SCC 457, wherein it was held that having not entered into the witness box and having not presented himself for cross examination, an adverse presumption has to be drawn against such a party/witness on the basis of the principles contained in Illustration (g) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
Delhi District Court Cites 56 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dakshinamurthy vs Dhanabal (Died) on 6 August, 2021

34. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the Appellants/plaintiffs in the case of Iqbal Basith and others vs. N.Subbalakshmi and others reported in 2021 (2) CTC 104 applies to the facts of the instant case. In that case also, photocopies of documents over 30 years old were produced and marked as exhibit without objection and the genuineness of the same was questioned by the defendant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the documents more than 30 years old produced from proper custody with an explanation for non-production of original, the presumption of the said document under section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act is valid.
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - A Quddhose - Full Document

Mukul Samar vs Gangaraju on 17 January, 2026

13. It is relevant to note that Section 104 of the Bharatiya Sakshaya Adhiniyam 2023 provides : Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. Section 105 of the said Act provides that the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. The evidence on record denotes that the plaintiff has discharged the initial burden by producing oral and documentary evidence on the principles of preponderance of probability. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the plaintiff. On the contrary the defendant in order to prove his defence has not cross examined or has produced any cogent material to OS No.8135/2023 16 substantiate the same. The evidence of PW1 & PW2 is consistent and narrate the events described in the plaint and the defendant has not stepped into the witness box to give his version of facts which in view of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act ( Now Section 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) read with illustration (g) thereto which leads to an adverse inference that if the defendant had examined himself his evidence would have been unfavorable to him and thus an adverse inference can be drawn against the defendant if he does not present himself for cross examination and refuses to enter witness box in order to refute the allegations made against him or to support his pleadings as taken in the written statement and this view is fortified from the judgments in Ramesh Kumar v. Furu Ram (2011) 8 SCC 613 and Iqbal Basith v. N.Subbalakshmi and another, (2021)2 SCC 718. Thus for all the aforesaid reasons, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim of Rs. 505151/- .
Bangalore District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Yashodhamma vs Ashok on 10 March, 2026

15. It is relevant to note that Section 104 of the Bharatiya Sakshaya Adhiniyam 2023 provides : Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. Section 105 of the said Act provides that the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. The evidence on record denotes that the plaintiff has discharged the initial burden by producing oral and documentary evidence on the principles of preponderance of probability. The evidence of PW1 is consistent and believable but the defendant has not stepped into the witness box to give his version of facts which in view of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act (Now Section 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) read with illustration (g) thereto which leads to an adverse inference that if the defendant had examined O.S. No.549/2024 20 himself his evidence would have been unfavorable to him and thus an adverse inference can be drawn against the defendant if he does not present himself for cross examination and refuses to enter witness box in order to refute the allegations made against him or to support his pleadings as taken in the written statement and this view is fortified from the judgments in Ramesh Kumar v. Furu Ram (2011) 8 SCC 613 and Iqbal Basith v. N.Subbalakshmi and another, (2021)2 SCC 718. Therefore Point No.1 to 3 in the Affirmative.
Bangalore District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next