Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (5.54 seconds)Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 114 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 118 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Sahney Motor Corpn. And Anr. vs Sm. Sova Mukherjee on 11 April, 1986
In Sahney Motor Corporation v. Sova Mukharjee A.I.R. 1988 Cal. 59, also it was pointed out that the mandatory presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would stand rebutted under certain circumstances even by a contrary, though permissive, presumption under Section 114 and Illustration (g) thereof of the Evidence Act arising out of a deliberate withholding of material evidence.
Gurusami Nadan And Ors. vs T.S. Gopalaswmi Odayar And Ors. on 23 January, 1919
Not merely can the court base its conclusion of the effect of the evidence taken as a whole but it may also draw adverse inference against a party who being in a position to adduce better evidence deliberately abstains from doing so; Murugesan Pillai v. Gnanasambandha Pandora Sannadhi A.I.R. 1917 P.C. 6, Guruswami Nadan v. Gopalaswami Odayar I.L.R. 42 Mad. 629 : A.I.R. 1919 Mad.
Official Receiver, Kanpur And Another vs Abdul Shakur And Others on 11 September, 1964
V.R.S.Rm. Ramaswami Chettiar And Anr. vs Sri Devi Talkies By Partner K. ... on 27 February, 1975
9. The learned Counsel no doubt also refers to the decision reported in Ramasamy Chettiar v. Sri Devi Talkies (1976) 1 M.L.J. 22, wherein it was held that to rebut the presumption under Section 118, the defendant must adduce acceptable evidence. But, as already stated, there were several authorities including that of the Supreme Court holding that the said rebuttal need not always be by direct evidence adduced by the defendant may be by presumption of law or fact.
Thirumalai Iyengar vs Subba Raja on 24 August, 1961
Thirumalai Iyengar v. Subba Raja (1969) 1 M.L.J. 193; 5.