Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.68 seconds)
Syed Yousuf Ali vs 1.Mohd. Yousuf 2.Smt Waheedunnisa ... on 5 February, 2016 cites

Athapuram Raghuramaiah And Another vs Dyava Ramaiah on 4 October, 2012

20. Learned counsel for the petitioner further drawn the attention of this Court to Athapuram Raghuramaiah and another v. Dyava Ramaiah , wherein this Court considered the scope of Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act and Order XIII Rule 4 CPC for impounding documents and held that mere marking of a document or showing it to the witness would not amount to admissibility of document in evidence, after judicial consideration as to its admissibility, unless the endorsement made on the document at the time of marking contains a specific statement as to its admission in evidence and signed or initialled by the Judge as prescribed under Order 13 Rule 4 CPC, it cannot be said to be admitted. This Court further held that the words admitted in evidence as appearing in Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act mean admitted after judicial consideration of objections relating to its admissibility. Thus, there shall be a judicial determination of the question whether it can be admitted in evidence or not for want of stamp, on the day when the document was shown to the witnesses and marked. Merely because a document was marked or shown to the witness would not mean that the objection raised by the opposite party was rejected by judicial determination.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - N Ali - Full Document

Omprakash vs Laxminarayan & Ors on 7 October, 2013

5. Raising several contentions and one among the other is that mere marking of document as exhibit without applying mind, does not amount to admission of document in evidence and the revision petitioner is entitled to challenge the admissibility of the document at any time and Section 36 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is not applicable to the present facts of the case. But the trial Court committed a grave error in exercising the jurisdiction conferred on it. Therefore, it warrants interference of this Court and prayed to set aside the order placing reliance on Omprakash v. Laxminarayan and others .
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 49 - C K Prasad - Full Document
1   2 Next