Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.25 seconds)The Right to Information Act, 2005
Daya Bhatnagar And Ors. vs State on 1 January, 1800
In Daya Bhatnagar Vs. State 109 (2004 ) DLT 915 the
Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that public view contemplated presence of
independent and impartial persons not having any commercial, business or family
relations with the complainant/informant . Specific suggestions were given to the
students that they were under the influence of the teachers as their marks were in the
hands of the teachers. The position of teachers apparently is dominant over the
students and as stated their testimony appears to be more tutored than factual, they
having not supported the version of the complainant fully and completely. With
several doubts in the prosecution case including the very presence of the complainant
in the institute at the time of incident, it will be unsafe to rely upon the testimony of
these students: one of whom has been found to be a planted witness: to convict the
accused.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Alacs Finanz Ltd. vs Oksh Technologies on 16 May, 2005
Hon'ble High Court in 119 (2005) DLT 585 (DB) Alacs Finanz Ltd. Vs.
Ovsh Technologies, it was held that where secondary evidence admitted without proper
objection, it becomes primary. Had objection been taken then and there, party affected
could have met it and regularised proceedings.
1