Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1120 (4.73 seconds)
Documents citing Gopal, Krishnaji Ketkar vs Mahomed Haji Latif & Ors on 19 April, 1968

B. Ranga Swamydied Per Lrs 2 To 9 vs Secy. Revenue Dept. Hyd 2 Ors on 1 April, 2021

12. Generally, it is the duty of the party to lead the best evidence in his possession, which could throw light on the issue in controversy and in case such material evidence is withheld, the court may draw adverse inference under Section 114 Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act notwithstanding, that the onus of proof did not lie on such party and it was not called upon to produce the said evidence. [Vide Murugesam Pillai v. Manickavasaka Pandara [(1916-17) 44 IA 98 : AIR 1917 PC 6] , Hiralal v. Badkulal [AIR 1953 SC 225] , A. Raghavamma v. A. Chenchamma [AIR 1964 SC 136] , Union of India v. Mahadeolal Prabhu Dayal [AIR 1965 SC 1755] , Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohd. Haji Latif [AIR 1968 SC 1413] , BHEL v. State of U.P. [(2003) 6 SCC 528 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 506 : AIR 2003 SC 3024] , Mussauddin Ahmed v. State of Assam [(2009) 14 SCC 541 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1445 : AIR 21 (2012) 4 SCC 407 22 (2012) 8 SCC 148 54 GSD, J ccca_22_1999 2010 SC 3813] and Khatri Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Union of India [(2011) 9 SCC 126 : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 484] .] xxxxxxxxxx
Telangana High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - G S Devi - Full Document

K.Sugumar vs P.K.Sundaram on 29 April, 2015

21.It is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1968 SC 1413  Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar V. Mohamed Haji Latif and others that ......We are unable to accept this argument as correct. Even if the burden of proof does not lie on a party the Court may draw an adverse inference if he withholds important documents in his possession which can throw light on the facts at issue. It is not, in our opinion, a sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court the best evidence which is in their possession which could throw light upon the issues in controversy and to rely upon the abstract doctrine of onus of proof.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - K B Vasuki - Full Document

Tamilnadu Fasteners vs Cce on 30 August, 1996

It was contended that by applying the principles of illustration 114-G of the Evidence Act, adverse inference should be drawn against the Department in the absence of production of best evidence, viz. the accounts books of various dealers who purchased the goods of the appellant. The learned Counsel, in this connection, placed reliance on the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohammed Haji Latiff and Ors. . The learned Counsel further submitted that the authorities also did not collect any evidence relating to products manufactured by the appellant, and though officers of the Central Excise were visiting appellant's premises as the appellants were the licensee under the Act no irregularity was found by the authorities. In respect of a batch of appeals preferred by various appellants in similar proceedings instituted against them by the Central Excise authorities in similar circumstances in Appeal Nos. E/SB/885/89, 891/89, 892/89, 93/89, 1337/89, 1338/89 and 1339/89, the Tribunal by order dated 27.10.89 in E/SB/Order No. 215/89 set aside the order of adjudication and remanded the matter to enable the appellants to cross-examine the various third parties on whose statements the Department had placed reliance against them and whose cross-examination was not allowed in entirety. It was submitted that in the present case even though the appellant did not specifically seek the cross-examination of the very same persons in view of the fact that in connected cases when whose very persons are to be summoned as on date, in the interests of justice, the present impugned order also may be set aside so as to enable the appellant to join with other persons in cross-examining those witnesses on whose statement reliance is placed by the Department against the appellants. The appellants were not claiming any special privilege and only prayed for cross-examination of those witnesses who were going to be summoned not on account of the appellants, but on account of the other parties in other appeals and, therefore, the prayer of the appellants may not be negatived on the only ground that the appellants prior to the adjudication did not seek cross-examination of those witnesses. Finally, it was urged that in any event the levy of penalty is not called for.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Gmr Ambala Chandigarh Pvt. Ltd. vs National Highways Authority Of Indiia & ... on 26 September, 2022

27.9.2 The impugned Award merely holds, in this regard, that, in later proceedings, GMR did not again press its request for supply of documents. This finding does not appear to be correct. GMR had specifically raised the issue in paras 125, 137 and 139 of their written submissions filed before the learned Arbitral Tribunal on 29 December 2018. Reliance has also been placed, by GMR, on the judgements of the Supreme Court in Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohd Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed OMP (COMM) 480/2020 & OMP (COMM) 481/2020 Page 109 of 133 By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:28.09.2022 13:07:07 3 Haji Latif and U.O.I. v. Ibrahim Uddin52, which clearly hold that withholding, by a litigant, of important documents which are in its possession, must necessarily invite an adverse inference against such litigant. These submissions have not been considered by the learned Arbitral Tribunal, merely on the ground that, during the progress of the proceedings before it, GMR did not reiterate its request for supply of the aforesaid documents.
Delhi High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Mr. Kallol Basu vs British Airway & Others on 27 May, 2010

On the issue as to whether the given staircase was old, wobbly and dilapidated or otherwise, we accept the complainants version on the principle of res ipsa loquotur the same being uncontroverted through evidence and in such regard, we would rely on the citation as in 2004 (3) CPR 60 (NC) Geeta Jethani & others Vs. Airport Authority of India & others and (1968) 3 SCR 862 : AIR 1968 SC 1413 Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar Vs. Mohammed Haji Latif & others.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Balubha Ashabhai Manek vs Gujarat Water Supply And Sewarage Board on 6 March, 2020

"20 It is not in dispute that the workman was employed with the respondent Department in the year 1987 and on the basis of material evidence adduced by both the parties and in the absence of the non- production of muster rolls on the ground that they are not available, which contention of the respondent Department is rightly not accepted by the Labour Court and it has recorded the finding of fact holding that the workman has worked from 1.1.1987 to 1.4.1992. The Labour Court has drawn adverse inference with regard to non production of muster rolls maintained by them, in this regard, it would be useful to refer to the judgment of this Page 48 of 53 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 07 10:59:07 IST 2020 C/SCA/20894/2017 CAV JUDGMENT Court in the case of Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohd Haji Latif & Ors. [AIR 1968 SC 1413] wherein it was held thus: [AIR p.1416, para 5] :
Gujarat High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 3 - B Vaishnav - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next