Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 681 (0.74 seconds)
Documents citing Modula India vs Kamakshya Singh Deo on 27 September, 1988

Sandeep Optical Co Pvt Through Its ... vs Laxmi Eye Care Llp on 16 October, 2024

"3. However, legal position in respect of aforesaid proposition of law has been enunciated by the Supreme Court in Modula India v. Kamakshya Singh Deo, (1988) 4 SCC 619. It was held that where defence is struck off, the defendant would not be entitled to lead any evidence of his own nor his cross- examination be permitted to travel beyond the very limited objective of pointing out the falsity or weakness of the plaintiff's case. In no circumstances should the cross-examination be permitted to travel beyond the legitimate scope and to convert itself virtually into a presentation of the defendant's case either directly or in the form of suggestions put to the plaintiff's witnesses.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Satish Kumar vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Others ... on 19 January, 2012

Similarly, in the case of Modula India (supra) the issue was whether the oral testimony of a witness can be relied without putting him to the cross-examination and whether such an oral testimony constitutes evidence? Thus, no assistance can also be drawn from this judgment, as the issue whether the opinion given by the expert evidence is admissible in evidence without examining the said witness in trial was not an issue before the Apex Court.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Hotchand Lodhani vs Smt.Ratna Bai on 31 July, 2025

"4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that admittedly the defence of the petitioner/defendant has been struck out by the Trial Court as per the provisions of section 13 (6) of the Act because of non-compliance of the provisions provided under section 13 (1) of the Act for deposit of the entire arrears of rent in the Trial Court and also on the ground that defendant/tenant has also not deposited regularly the monthly rent of the suit premises. Now, the only question remains for consideration that after striking out of the defence of the defendant/tenant up-to what extent the defendant/tenant can lead evidence in the Trial Court. This point has already been considered and decided by the apex Court in the case of Modula India v. Kamaksdhya Singh Deo, AIR 1989 SC 162, wherein under the similar situation when the defence of the defendant/tenant has been struck out with regard to non-compliance of the provisions for deposit of the rent in the Court, the Hon'ble apex Court while dealing with the similar provisions of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 held in para 12 with regard to the scope of cross-examination on the plaintiff's witness by the defendant whose defence has been struck out, herein as under :
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - D D Bansal - Full Document

Sheshrao Raibhan Ingale vs Shilpa Sheshrao Ingale on 3 November, 2004

16. In view of the aforesaid three judgrnents referred to hereinabove, which are still holding the field, the issue sought to be referred to us is no more res integra. However, it appears that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s Babbar Sewing Machine Company v. Trilok Nath Mahajan and Modula India v. Kamakshya Singh Deo (cited supra) were not brought to the notice of the learned single Judge (Khanwilkar, J.)
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 4 - V C Daga - Full Document

Raman Aggarwal vs Shweta Aggarwal on 1 November, 2013

18. There is no dispute about the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid judgment. The perusal of the trial court record shows that the defence of appellant was struck down on 15 th December, 2003. Thereafter case was adjourned to 6th February, 2004 for PE. On that day, respondent/wife tendered her affidavit Ex.P1 in evidence. The ld.trial court awaited the matter upto 2.30 pm but there was no appearance on behalf of appellant, as such he was proceeded ex parte on that day and the case was adjourned to 19.2.2004 for final arguments. On the said date, the father of appellant had appeared and sought adjournment. The ld.trial court heard the arguments of respondent/wife on 19th February, 2004 and listed the case for orders on 8th March, 2004 and it was ordered that appellant was at liberty to argue before the said date. On 8th March, 2004, an application u/s 151 CPC and written arguments were filed by appellant. On the said date, case was adjourned to 15.3.2004 for orders. On 15th March, 2004, at 2.30 pm, an application was filed by the appellant wherein prayer was made to allow him to cross examine the respondent/wife. The said application was rejected by the ld.trial court by passing a detail speaking order noting the conduct of appellant and on that very date impugned judgment was passed whereby the petition was allowed and the marriage was annulled.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - V Birbal - Full Document

Smt. Pushpa Devi vs Shyam Kumar on 31 October, 2025

From the above decision it can now safely be held that the defendant, whose defence against eviction is struck out in a suit for eviction on grounds under the Rent Act, can cross-examine the plaintiff and his witnesses and address the Court on the basis of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 11/1/2025 11:20:57 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31565
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Kailash Sethi vs Ms. Punita Sahni @ Punita Kohli @ Punita ... on 28 October, 2009

But so 9 far as Modula India Vs. Kamakshya Singh Deo, (1988) 4 SCC 619 is concerned, the same is of no help to respondent as it is on different point. It was held in this case that the respondent has the right to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses and to address arguments, even if his defence is struck out. It has been held in this case, "However, the defendant would not be entitled to lead any evidence of his own nor can his cross-examination be permitted to travel beyond the very limited objective of pointing out the falsity or weaknesses of the plaintiff's case. In no circumstances should the cross-examination be permitted to travel beyond this legitimate scope and to convert itself virtually into a presentation of the defendant's case either directly or in the form of suggestions put to the plaintiff's witnesses."
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next