Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 486 (3.63 seconds)
Documents citing Narbada Devi Gupta vs Birendra Kumar Jaiswal And Anr on 3 November, 2003

Basant Goel Proprietor Of Goel Medicos vs Health Care At Home India Pvt. Ltd on 30 March, 2026

Narbada Devi Gupta vs Birendra Kumar Jaiswal: The plaintiff has relied upon this case to buttress his submis- sion that the mere production of the documents and mark- ing it as Exhibits is not proof of the documents and the documents have to be proved by admissible evidence. However, the Hon'ble SC has held that when the docu- ments are admitted and signatures are also admitted, then the situation is different and it does not require any sepa- rate evidence to prove the documents. The relevant part of the judgement, as relied upon by the plaintiff, is as fol- lows:
Delhi District Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sit, Cid, Bengaluru vs Prajwal Revanna on 2 August, 2025

43. The same proposition of law is reiterated by this Court in Narbada Devi Gupta v. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal [(2003) 8 SCC 745] where this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 751, para 16) "16. ... The legal position is not in dispute that mere production and marking of a document as exhibit by the court cannot be held to be a due proof of its contents. Its execution has to be proved by admissible evidence, that is, by the 'evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue'."
Bangalore District Court Cites 156 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. ... vs Chandrakala Atmaram Mohite And Ors on 26 September, 2019

11. Point no.01 : The claimants had examined ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2019 06:05:44 ::: (Judgment) (13) F.A. No. 02757 of 2017 mother of the deceased to support their claim. Though she has stated about the manner in which the accident had taken place, yet, it can be seen that she was admittedly not present at the spot when the accident took place. Claimants have relied on the police papers to support their contention. However, the contents of the pleadings i.e. the petition itself would show that they have not made any averment as to why only the Indica car driver was held negligent by police. There is no mention in the petition or thereafter in the affidavit in chief by CW 01 Chandrakala, that in view of the fact that report regarding accident was given by truck driver and the situation at the spot is different, they do not want to rely on the police papers. As stated in Oriental Insurance Company's case (supra), wherein reference is made to the decision in Narbada Devi Gupta Vs. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal [(2003) 8 SCC 745], that contents of a document are not automatically proved only because it is marked as exhibit. The initial burden to prove the manner of accident and negligence is always on the claimants. Therefore, proper and cogent evidence ought to have been adduced by the claimants in this case. Though the provisions of Evidence Act are not strictly applicable to M.A.C.T. and the Tribunal while following summary procedure is required to consider the claim of the claimants on the basis of preponderance of probabilities; yet, the Tribunal cannot forget basic principles of establishing the ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2019 06:05:44 ::: (Judgment) (14) F.A. No. 02757 of 2017 liability which is inclusive of the point of negligence. Unless negligence is proved, the respondent being tortfeasor cannot be made liable to pay compensation.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - V V Kankanwadi - Full Document

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

37. Supreme Court in the case of Narbada Devi Gupta vs Birendra Kumar Jaiswal & Anr. (supra) inter alia held that the legal position is not in dispute that mere production and marking of a document as exhibit by the court cannot be held to be a due proof of its contents. Its execution has to be proved by admissible evidence, that is, by the "evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue". The situation is, however, different where the documents are produced, they are admitted by the opposite party, signatures on them are also admitted and they are marked thereafter as exhibits by the court. When the documents were admitted and then exhibited; there is no further burden of proof on the party to lead additional evidence in proof of the writing of those documents and their execution by its scribe.
Delhi District Court Cites 56 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chandrakala Atmaram Mohite And Ors vs M/S. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. ... on 26 September, 2019

11. Point no.01 : The claimants had examined ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2019 06:05:49 ::: (Judgment) (13) F.A. No. 02757 of 2017 mother of the deceased to support their claim. Though she has stated about the manner in which the accident had taken place, yet, it can be seen that she was admittedly not present at the spot when the accident took place. Claimants have relied on the police papers to support their contention. However, the contents of the pleadings i.e. the petition itself would show that they have not made any averment as to why only the Indica car driver was held negligent by police. There is no mention in the petition or thereafter in the affidavit in chief by CW 01 Chandrakala, that in view of the fact that report regarding accident was given by truck driver and the situation at the spot is different, they do not want to rely on the police papers. As stated in Oriental Insurance Company's case (supra), wherein reference is made to the decision in Narbada Devi Gupta Vs. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal [(2003) 8 SCC 745], that contents of a document are not automatically proved only because it is marked as exhibit. The initial burden to prove the manner of accident and negligence is always on the claimants. Therefore, proper and cogent evidence ought to have been adduced by the claimants in this case. Though the provisions of Evidence Act are not strictly applicable to M.A.C.T. and the Tribunal while following summary procedure is required to consider the claim of the claimants on the basis of preponderance of probabilities; yet, the Tribunal cannot forget basic principles of establishing the ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2019 06:05:49 ::: (Judgment) (14) F.A. No. 02757 of 2017 liability which is inclusive of the point of negligence. Unless negligence is proved, the respondent being tortfeasor cannot be made liable to pay compensation.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - V V Kankanwadi - Full Document

Sri.M.B.Chidananda vs Late Venkategowda on 26 April, 2025

35. Beyond the substantive gap in title, the defendants did not adequately prove the authenticity and execution of the sale deeds in their chain. They produced copies of certain sale deeds (including the 1969 deed and later conveyances), and the trial court marked these as exhibits. However, mere production and exhibition of a document in court does not prove its contents or the truth of the transaction. The Supreme Court has emphatically in the case of Narbada Devi Gupta v. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal [(2003) 8 SCC 745] held that "mere production and marking of a document as exhibit by the Court cannot be held to be due proof of its contents. In the present case, no witness was called who had personal knowledge of the 1969 sale by Honnegowda or the subsequent sales. Honnegowda himself is not shown to be alive or to have ever asserted any rights. None of the intermediate buyers or sellers testified to confirm the transactions or to explain how title could have passed from Narasamma. The 48 defendants thus led no direct evidence to vouch for the genuineness of the alleged 1969 sale. Even the payment of consideration and the circumstances of that sale remain unproved, as the principal actors did not appear. In this scenario, the probative value of the registered sale deeds is greatly diminished.
Karnataka High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - K Somashekar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next