Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 681 (1.26 seconds)
Documents citing Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs State Of Gujarat And Anr on 22 February, 2001

Abid vs State on 17 June, 2010

6.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner distinguished the decision in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat [(2001) 3 SCC 1] [JT 2001 (3) SC 120] and submitted that the above case would not be a binding precedent for this Court inasmuch as the above case law was decided in context of different facts and particularly provisions of Sections 5 to 35 and Section 136 of Evidence Act were not considered at all. It is submitted that when there is a statutory provision in the Evidence Act, then the question of admissibility and relevancy has to be considered as per the provisions of the Act.
Gujarat High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 0 - A S Dave - Full Document

Bhavnaben D/O Mulubhai Jalu vs State Of Gujarat on 1 January, 2024

15. Therefore, from the above decisions, what emerges is that when a case falls within the first category of cases, viz., when an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence, is raised, the procedure laid down in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat (supra) can be followed and the court can give a tentative exhibit number to such document and deal with the admissibility thereof at the final stage of judgement; however, when a case falls within the second category, viz., where the objection which is raised does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient, such objection has to be decided at the time when it is raised as the same would enable the party tendering the evidence to cure the defect and resort to such mode of proof as would be regular. It is relevant to note that the court has not adjudicated the issue whether this document can be exhibited or not and has defer the issue of proof of the said document which is impermissible.
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Galatea Ltd vs Diyora And Bhanderi Corporation on 21 November, 2019

23. Though the case was argued at length with regard to the waiver of right of a party etc., the same have not been dealt with since the Court has dealt with several judgments of this Court which has relied upon the decision of Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat and others (Supra). Hence, the objections raised by the plaintiff about the acceptance of applications Exh.167 and 169 is accepted and accordingly, applications Exh.167 and 169 are hereby rejected.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - A J Desai - Full Document

Abdul Quddhose.J vs M/S.Sri Thenandal Films

Though, the learned counsel for the respondent / defendant would rely upon a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Criminal Trials Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies, In Re Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others reported in 2021 (10) SCC 598 to substantiate his argument that the Judgment rendered in Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat and Another reported in 11/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2001 (3) SCC 1 has been declared to be bad in law, the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Dhanpat VS. Sheo Ram (Deceased) through Legal Representatives and Others reported in 2020 (16) SCC 209, which is the standard decision with regard to the present issue has not been overruled in the decision reported in 2021 (10) SCC 598 i.e., Bipin Shantilal case. Further, the decision rendered in 2021 (10) SCC 598 pertains to criminal trial as the Honourable Supreme Court has framed guidelines with regard to criminal trials and the inadequacies and deficiencies with regard to criminal trials and explicitly it is disclosed that the petitioner is Criminal Trials Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies, In Re. In the case on hand, it is a civil suit and it is not a criminal trial which was in consideration by the Honourable Supreme Court in 2021 (10) SCC 598. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent / defendant reported in 2021 (10) SCC 598 has no bearing to the facts of the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M.Rajendra Rao vs Vetri Selvi Suresh on 5 December, 2016

7.I am unable to understand the decision of the Supreme Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal as absolving the trial Judge of the obligation in all cases to render a ruling on the question of admissibility. Uncertainty ought to be avoided in for the contestants. If a document is on the face of it and clearly admissible or inadmissible, the Court need not and should not hesitate to straightaway give a ruling on that aspect. Only when the dispute about admissibility raised by a contestant possess problems warranting detailed arguments and decision, need the Court postpone the decision on such objections. A ritualistic and myopic understanding of the dictum would leave the Courts with all sorts of unnecessary inadmissible materials vexatiously introduced into evidence. Taking advantage of the ruling white paper or unattested xerox copies which are not admissible at all may be stealthily introduced into evidence making it difficult later on to separate the admissible from the inadmissible and leaving it uncertain to the parties as to what evidence has really come in and what had not come in. I say so only to clarify that the observations in paras-12 and 13 of Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat (supra) should not be understood to mean that no ruling need or can ever be given hereafter on the objections raised as and when they are raised. It cannot be lost sight of that the Supreme Court's observations are intended to expedite trial and to avoid the possibility of remand. That is no licence to a party to introduce into evidence all inadmissible material in the hope that till ruling is given ultimately the records can be permitted to swell and the issue confused. But the above decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - R Mala - Full Document

Johny vs James on 13 June, 2006

7. I am unable to understand the decision of the Supreme Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal as absolving the trial Judge of the obligation in all cases to render a ruling on the question of admissibility. Uncertainty ought to be avoided in for the contestants. If a document is on the face of it and clearly admissible or inadmissible, the court need not and should not hesitate to straightaway give a ruling on that aspect. Only when the dispute about admissibility raised by a contestant poses problems warranting detailed arguments and decision, need the court postpone the decision on such objections. A ritualistic and myopic understanding of the dictum would leave the courts with all sorts of unnecessary, inadmissible materials vexatiously introduced into evidence. Taking advantage of the ruling white paper or unattested xerox copies which are not admissible at all may be stealthily introduced into evidence making it difficult later on to separate the admissible from the inadmissible and leaving it uncertain to the parties as to what evidence has really come in and what has not come in. I say so only to clarify that the observations in paras-12 and 13 of Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat (supra) should not be understood to mean that no ruling need or can ever be given hereafter on the objections raised as and when they are raised. It cannot; be lost sight of that the Supreme Court's observations are intended to expedite trial and to avoid the possibility of remand. That is no licence to a party to introduce into evidence all inadmissible material in the hope that till ruling is given ultimately the records can be permitted to swell and the issue confused.
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - R Basant - Full Document

Shivajibhai vs Shayad on 4 August, 2010

2. Learned advocate for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat & Anr. [ AIR 2001 SC 1158] and submits that the documents in question, there was no statutory provisions but the same were not registered under the Registration Act and, therefore, the learned Judge could have followed the procedure as laid down in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (supra) and should have passed the order accordingly.
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A S Dave - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next