Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.35 seconds)
Documents citing Dr. Tazeen Fatima vs State Of U.P. on 13 October, 2020

Abbas Ansari And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 15 October, 2020

It was also argued at the Bar that in almost similar circumstances this Court in Writ-C No. 13722 of 2020 (Dr. Tazeen Fatima vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) and Writ-C No. 16393 of 2020 (C/M Sham-E-Husaini Institute of Nursing And Paramedical College And Hospital And Another vs.State of U.P. And 2 Others) have passed an order relegating the petitioners therein to file an appeal before the appellate court and interim protection was granted to the petitioners therein,as such the present petitions may also be disposed off on same terms .
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

S.Ramu vs Dr.M.Valluvan on 15 February, 2022

17. Recently, the Allahabad High Court in Dr.Tazeen Fathima & Others Vs. State of U.P.5 held that a judgment in the Election Petition relating to the same matter, is relevant under Section 42 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, it is clear that while Section 41 of Indian Evidence Act enumerates the Judgments in rem, Section 42 of the Evidence Act makes relevant the judgments in matters of public nature, which would mean the other judgments though not in rem, but deal with questions which are 3 AIR 1962 HP 28 4 AIR 1932 Bom 398 5 Crl.M.P. No.15385 of 2020, Order dated 13/10/2020 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17/35 Crl.R.C.Nos.971 and 938 of 2014 strictly not inter parties but facts of public notoriety, impacting larger public like, whether a trust is private or public in nature, whether there was grazing rights, whether there was a custom prevailing in a particular community etc. Therefore, this Judgment inter parties, deciding whether the petitioner/accused are liable to pay compensation for defamation based on a fact finding that there was no evidence to connect the defendants with the handbill, does not in any manner deal with any larger question of public notoriety or involving larger public or public authorities/documents etc. Therefore, it cannot be relevant under Section 42 of the Act.
Madras High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - D B Chakravarthy - Full Document

Gurumoorthi vs Mohanasundaram Rajamany on 2 August, 2022

17. Recently, the Allahabad High Court in Dr.Tazeen Fathima & Others Vs. State of U.P.20 held that a judgment in the Election Petition relating to the same matter, is relevant under Section 42 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, it is clear that while Section 41 of Indian Evidence Act enumerates the Judgments in rem, Section 42 of the Evidence Act makes relevant the judgments in matters of public nature, which would mean the other judgments though not in rem, but deal with questions which are strictly not inter parties but facts of public notoriety, impacting larger public like, whether a trust is private or public in nature, whether there was grazing rights, whether there was a custom prevailing in a particular 19 AIR 1932 Bom 398 20 Crl.M.P. No.15385 of 2020, Order dated 13/10/2020 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 37/43 Crl.R.C.No.927 of 2021 community etc. Therefore, this Judgment inter parties, deciding whether the petitioner/accused are liable to pay compensation for defamation based on a fact finding that there was no evidence to connect the defendants with the handbill, does not in any manner deal with any larger question of public notoriety or involving larger public or public authorities/documents etc. Therefore, it cannot be relevant under Section 42 of the Act.
Madras High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 0 - D B Chakravarthy - Full Document
1