Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.41 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
M/S K.B.Saha And Sons Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Development Consultant Ltd on 12 May, 2008
"From the principles laid down in the various
decisions of this Court and the High Courts, as referred to
hereinabove, it is evident that :-
Section 49 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Martand Pandharinath Chaudhari vs Radhabai Krishnarao Deshmukh on 24 March, 1930
This was followed by the Lahore
High Court in Kirpa Singh v. Ajaipal Singh and Ors. AIR
(1930) Lahore 1 and the Bombay High Court in Martand
Pandharinath Chaudhari v. Radhabai Krishnarao
Deshmukh AIR (1931) Bombay 97.
Gulla Kharagjit Carpenter vs Narsingh Nandkishore Rawat on 27 October, 1969
The Madhya Pradesh
High Court in Gulla Kharagjit Carpenter v. Narsingh
Nandkishore Rawat also followed the Privy Council
decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh's case (supra).
Arjun Singh vs Virendra Nath And Anr. on 2 January, 1970
The
Allahabad High Court in Arjun Singh v. Virender Nath and
Anr. held that if a party abstains from entering the
witness box, it would give rise to an inference adverse
against him.
Bhagwan Dass vs Bhishan Chand And Ors. on 24 July, 1972
Similarly, a Division Bench of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in Bhagwan Dass v. Bhishan Chand
and Ors. , drew a presumption under Section 114 of the
28
Evidence Act against a party who did not enter into the
witness box."