Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.13 seconds)
Defendant vs Smt. Rakhi Acharjee on 3 February, 2021 cites

Nazir Mohamed vs J.Kamala And Ors. on 27 August, 2020

[32] Keeping in mind the above principles as delineated in Nazir Mohamed (supra), in my considered view, in the instant appeal none of the proposed substantial questions of law as reproduced hereinabove constitute substantial question of law. The learned trial court had arrived at an erroneous finding on appreciating the true meaning and spirit of Section-67 and Section-68 of the Indian Evidence Act. The question tried to be raised centering around Section-67 and Section-68 of the Evidence Act, does not allow this Court to take any alternative view, and leaves no room to arrive at a different finding than that Page 25 of 26 of the findings arrived at by the learned First Appellate Court. The provision of Sections-67 and 68 are clear and unambiguous. The learned trial court has failed to apply his mind while appreciating the essentialities of Section-67 of the Evidence Act and the instant appeal does not give any scope to further debate about the requirements of Section- 67 and Section-68 of the Indian Evidence Act which has already been well settled by a wealth of decision of the Apex Court. Thus, I am unable to trace out any such question which may be considered as a substantial question of law to admit this appeal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 128 - I Banerjee - Full Document
1   2 Next