Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.24 seconds)Section 4 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Smt. Kamti Devi & Anr vs Poshi Ram Respondent on 11 May, 2001
In Kamti Devi's case the Apex Court in Para 10 held thus :
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 45 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Shri Banarsi Dass vs Mrs. Teeku Dutta And Anr on 27 April, 2005
In my considered view, the judgment of the Apex Court in Banarsi Dass 's case squarely applies to the facts of the instant case. Merely because the second defendant denied the paternity of the first defendant, having regard to the nature of the proceedings filed and the other admitted facts emanating from the respective pleadings, there is no need for the Court in a routine manner to direct the first and second defendants to subject themselves to DNA Test oblivious of the fact that it tantamount to permitting the parties to lead evidence to rebut the conclusive proof enjoined under Section 112 of the Act which is not permissible in view of the mandate contained in Section 4 under the definition "conclusive proof. It is always open to the Court to draw an adverse inference from the conduct of the parties, as can be seen from the respective pleadings.
Section 372 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Union Of India & Others vs M/S. G.T.C. Industries Limited on 27 March, 2003
In Sharda v. Dharmpal, , a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court held in Para 81 thus :
Goutam Kundu vs State Of West Bengal And Anr on 14 May, 1993
The Apex Court distinguished its earlier judgment in Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal, , wherein it was held that a person could not be compelled to give his blood sample for DNA Test.
1