Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (1.87 seconds)Section 96 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Shailendra Pratap And Anr vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 8 January, 2003
In Shailendra Pratap v. State of U.P. (2003) 1
SCC 761, the Court observed thus: (SCC p.766,
para 8
"8...We are of the opinion that the trial
court was quite justified in acquitting the
appellants of the charges as the view
taken by it was reasonable and the order
of acquittal cannot be said to be perverse.
It is well settled that the appellate court
would not be justified in interfering with
::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2023 21:29:57 :::CIS
-12-
the order of acquittal unless the same is
found to be perverse. In the present case,
the High Court has committed an error in
interfering with the order of acquittal of
.
Kuldeep Singh vs The Commissioner Of Police & Ors on 17 December, 1998
In Kuldeep Singh v. The Commissioner of
Police (1999) 2 SCC 10, the Court while dealing
with the scope of Articles 32 and 226 of the
Constitution observed as under: (SCC p.14,
of
paras 9-10)
"9. Normally the High Court and this
Court would not interfere with the
findings of fact recorded at the domestic
rt enquiry but if the finding of "guilt" is
based on no evidence, it would be a
perverse finding and would be amenable
to judicial scrutiny.
Smt. Rubi Sood And Another vs Major (Retd.) Vijay Kumar Sud & Others on 28 May, 2015
11. What is 'perverse' has further been considered by this
Court in RSA No. 436 of 2000, titled 'Rubi Sood v. Major
::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2023 21:29:57 :::CIS
-14-
(Retd.) Vijay Kumar Sud, decided on 28.05.2015 in the
following manner:--
Damodar Lal vs Sohan Devi And Ors on 5 January, 2016
12. What is 'perversity' recently came up for consideration
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar Lal v. Sohan
Devi, (2016) 3 SCC 78 wherein it was held as under:--
Smt. Sukha Devi vs Sh. Paritosh Chauhan on 25 July, 2018
17. The term perverse was explained by this Court in
Sukha Devi v. Paritosh Chauhan, 2018 SCC OnLine HP 1214 = 2019
rt
(2), Civil Court Cases 83 as under:-
J. D. Jain vs The Management Of State Bank Of India & ... on 17 December, 1981
20. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
J.D. Jain v. State Bank of India, (1982) 1 SCC 143, that the
statement of a witness made to a person, who is not called as a
witness is hearsay and inadmissible when the object of the
evidence is to establish the truth of what is contained in the
statement. It was observed:-