Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 50 (3.44 seconds)
Documents citing Rohit Shekhar vs Shri Narayan Dutt Tiwari & Anr. on 23 September, 2011

Chet Ram vs Inder Dev on 10 September, 2024

19. Furthermore, the applicant's refusal to undergo the DNA test, a procedure deemed essential for determining paternity and safeguarding the child's welfare, could warrant an adverse inference under Section 114, Illustration (h) of the Indian Evidence Act. This provision allows the court to infer that evidence which could be and is not produced would if ::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2024 20:30:39 :::CIS 16 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8285 ) produced, be unfavourable to the person withholding it. In Rohit Shekhar v. Narayan Dutt Tiwari 2011 SCC OnLine Delhi 4076, the Delhi High Court affirmed this principle, stating that refusal to undergo a DNA test in a paternity dispute can lead to .
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Immadabathuni Nagendramma vs The State Of A.P. on 2 August, 2018

However, the judgment of Supreme Court in Selvi v. State of Karnataka (supra) and judgment of Delhi High Court in Rohit Shekhar v. Shri Narayan Dutt Tiwari and another case (referred supra), it is clear that in paternity disputes, DNA test can be directed and it would not violate the right of privacy or fundamental right guaranteed under Article 20(3) or Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Telangana High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Sachin Agarwal vs State Of U.P And Another on 30 May, 2024

19. Furthermore, the applicant's refusal to undergo the DNA test, a procedure deemed essential for determining paternity and safeguarding the child's welfare, could warrant an adverse inference under Section 114, Illustration (h) of the Indian Evidence Act. This provision allows the court to infer that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavorable to the person withholding it. In Rohit Shekhar v. Narayan Dutt Tiwari 2011 SCC OnLine Delhi 4076, the Delhi High Court affirmed this principle, stating that refusal to undergo a DNA test in a paternity dispute can lead to an adverse inference against the refusing party. Such an inference, while not conclusive, strengthens the court's ability to arrive at a just decision based on the available evidence and the best interests of the children.
Allahabad High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sube Singh vs Smt. Shanti Devi And Others on 10 March, 2014

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following judgments of the Supreme Court in Goutam Kundu vs. State of West Bengal, 1993(3) SCC 418 and Shri Banarsi Dass vs. Mrs. Teeku Dutta and another, 2005(4) SCC 449 and judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Haribhai Chanabhai Vora and others vs. Keshubhai Haribhai Vora, 2005 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 28 and Premjibhai Bachubhai Khasiya vs. State of Gujarat & another, 2009(4) RCR (Criminal) 186 and judgment of the Delhi High Court in Rohit Shekhar vs. Shri Narayan Dutt Tiwari and another, 2011(4) RCR (Criminal) 307 and judgment of this Court in Jeeto and others vs. Jarnail Singh and others, 2012(3) RCR (Criminal) 107 and orders passed in Civil Revision No.7269 of 2012 titled Harinder Singh vs. Amarjit Kaur and others decided on 05th December, 2012.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 4 - R N Raina - Full Document

Manjeet Kaur vs Sukhwinder Kaur & Ors on 17 September, 2019

[17]. In the instant case, there is no such proposition involved. The plaintiff herself has come forward to establish her identity on the basis of DNA profile with her mother in order to establish that she is daughter of Jeet Singh. The claim is for a share in the property of Jeet Singh. The legal proposition involved on the issue is settled by now. The presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act is the subject matter of public morality and public policy and the same was aimed not to brand an innocent child as bastard which may have devastating effect on the mind of the child. The effect of such a test even in the light of stand taken by the defendants would not be having any issue, nor possibility of branding plaintiff to be a bastard as the defendants have already taken a stand that she is not daughter of Jeet Singh. In such a scenario the application for test of DNA profile can be allowed. The ratio(s) of Sharda vs. Dharampal; Bhabani Prasad Jena; Selvi vs. State of Karnataka; Rohit Shekhar vs. Narayan Dutt Tiwari and another; Krishan Kumar Malik vs. State of Haryana, 2011(17) SCC 130; Nandlal Wasudeo Badwalk and Dipantwita Roy's cases (supra) are fully attracted in the present case. [18].
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - R M Singh - Full Document

Ashok Singh Chauhan vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Home And ... on 15 November, 2019

11. Considering the case in Rohit Shekhar Vs. Narayan Dutt Tiwari and another decided by Delhi High Court on 27.4.2012 and in above backdrop this Court finds that no irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error is found in the impugned order. The view taken by appellate Court is plausible view, hence no interference is called for by this Court. Writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - A Singh - Full Document

Soma Rama Chandram, S/O.Late ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, ... on 30 November, 2012

Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that by virtue of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, for the purpose of dredging the actual paternity of the second petitioner, necessary orders are to be passed by the Court for subjecting her to necessary DNA test. He further contends that if the second petitioner refuses to submit herself for medical examination, an adverse inference can be drawn against her within the meaning of Section 114 of the Evidence Act. It is also contended by him that if an order is passed giving directions to carry out certain tests, non-implementation of the order will have the tendency of making the law and the Court, a laughing stock. According to him, under those principles, necessary force can also be applied against the person for the implementation of the order for having effective adjudication of the matter. He has drawn the attention of this Court to a decision of Delhi High Court in Rohit Shekhar v Narayan Dutt Tiwari1, in which it is observed that the first respondent therein against whom such an order was passed should obey the order and if he continues to defy the order, necessary police assistance and reasonable force for the compliance thereof should be taken or applied.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 32 - Cited by 4 - G K Reddy - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next