Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 39 (0.81 seconds)
Documents citing Dattatraya vs Rangnath Gopalrao Kawathekar (Dead) By ... on 28 January, 1971

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

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

Navneet Kumar vs Meena Kumari on 19 October, 2001

33. It is not his case that he is not a signatory Co it or it was not executed by him or that it was forged in either of the situations probably wife might have been called upon to prove the same. Once he admitted the documents Mark A and B having been executed in his pleadings followed by his statement and admission of signatures thereon, it was for him to have removed all doubts with a view to exclude of those being taken into account as legal evidence. We feel that these are relevant documents particularly when the husband knew the contems of both documents. And also does not deny their execution. As such the wife was not required to prove the execution of either mark A or B in the face of admission of execution of these documents by the husband and also having admitted to have signed these documents when he appeared as a witness in Court. Reference in this behalf can be made to case Dattatraya v. Rangnath Gopalrao Kawathekar (dead) by his legal representatives, AIR 1971 SC 2548.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - A K Goel - Full Document

Future Builders Co-Operative Housing ... vs S. Malla Reddy And Ors. on 28 December, 2007

Relying on Sita Ram Bhau Patil v. Ramchandra Nago Patil , where it is held that though admissions, in view of Sections 17 and 21 of the Evidence Act, are substantive evidence by themselves, they are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted, Dattatraya v. Rangnath Gopalrao Kawathekar where it is held that admission is a piece of evidence and that it is open to the person who made the admission to prove that those admissions are not true, and the observations in Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale case (9 supra), United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Samir Chandra Chaudhary , where it is held that admissions are not conclusive proof of the facts admitted and may be explained or shown to be wrong and, on Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan , where it is held that notwithstanding the admissions made by the defendant in his written statement, the Court can require the plaintiff to prove the facts pleaded by him in the plaint in view of Section 58 of the Evidence Act and Rule 5(1) of Order 8 CPC, plaintiff would not in any way be prejudiced by the defendants taking a plea that the admission allegedly made in their written statement, as a result of the fraud on them, is a wrong statement and that they never intended to make such admission and that fact can be established by them adducing evidence during trial because the Court at any stage of the suit can grant leave to amend the pleadings by relying on L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Messrs.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bank Of India vs Alibhoy Mohammed And Ors. on 29 January, 2008

38. A party seeking to prove the execution of a document is not required to prove that the executant knew the contents thereof when the execution denies having signed it and pleads forgery, but if the executant pleads ignorance then in certain circumstances it may be necessary to satisfy the Court that the executant had knowledge of the contents (Dattatraya v. Rangnath ). So where the correctness of the contents of a document is in issue, it should be proved by calling the person who executed the document.
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 5 - V C Daga - Full Document

Narbada Devi Gupta vs Birendra Kumar Jaiswal And Anr on 3 November, 2003

[Underlining to add emphasis] The main thrust of the argument strenuously advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff as appellant is that mere admission of the signatures of the plaintiff on the back portion of the rent receipts and their marking as exhibits by the court cannot be taken as due proof of execution of the rent receipts by the original landlady Ram Moni Devi. It is argued that the defendant failed to lead any evidence to prove writings on the rent receipts and their due execution and issuance by the landlady with her thumb impression. It is argued that exhibits are marked to the admitted signature of the plaintiff on the back portion of the rent receipts and such marking could not be taken to be proof of the due execution and issuance of the rent receipts. Learned counsel contends that marking documents as exhibits and their proof are two different legal concepts. Reference is made to Section 66 of the Evidence Act and reliance is placed on Dattatraya v. Ranganth Gopalrao Kawathekar (dead) Thr LRs., AIR (1971) SC 2548; Kamji Dayawala & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Invest Import, [1981] 1 SCC 80 and Om Prakash Berlla and Anr. v. Unit Trust of India and Ors., AIR (1983) (Bombay) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent supported the judgement of the High Court and submitted that the plaintiff having not disputed his signatures on the back portion of the three rent receipts and the documents having been admitted and marked as exhibits by order No.53 dated 3.9.82 of the trial court, there was no necessity to lead any further evidence by the defendant to prove writings on the rent receipts and their due execution in favour of the tenant by the landlady.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 267 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next