Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.25 seconds)Section 14 in The Family Courts Act, 1984 [Entire Act]
Anvar P.V vs P.K.Basheer & Ors on 18 September, 2014
if an electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under
Section 62 of the Evidence Act ..." is thus clarified; it is to be read
without the words "under Section 62 of the Evidence Act,...". With
this clarification, the law stated in para 24 of Anvar P.V. [Anvar P.V.
v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 27 : (2015)
1 SCC (Cri) 24 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 108] does not need to be
revisited.
Shafhi Mohammad vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 3 April, 2018
73.2. The clarification referred to above is that the required certificate
under Section 65-B(4) is unnecessary if the original document itself is
produced. This can be done by the owner of a laptop computer,
computer tablet or even a mobile phone, by stepping into the witness
box and proving that the device concerned, on which the original
information is first stored, is owned and/or operated by him. In cases
where the "computer" happens to be a part of a "computer system"
The Family Courts Act, 1984
Section 62 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Parry'S (Calcutta) Employee'S Union vs Parry And Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 23 December, 1964
In Parry's (Calcutta) Employees' Union v. Parry & Co. Ltd. [AIR
1966 Cal 31] the Court observed that "perverse finding" means a
finding which is not only against the weight of evidence but is
altogether against the evidence itself.
M/S. Triveni Rubber And Plastics vs Collector Of Central Excise, Cochin on 30 March, 1993
In Triveni Rubber &
Plastics v. CCE [1994 Supp (3) SCC 665 : AIR 1994 SC 1341] the
Court observed that this is not a case where it can be said that the
findings of the authorities are based on no evidence or that they are so
perverse that no reasonable person would have arrived at those
findings.
M.S. Narayanagouda vs Girijamma And Anr. on 30 August, 1976
In M.S. Narayanagouda v. Girijamma [AIR 1977 Kant 58] the
Court observed that any order made in conscious violation of pleading
and law is a perverse order.
Devina Jula Godfrey vs Ian Michael Godfrey on 10 June, 2021
In Godfrey v. Godfrey [106 NW 814] the Court
defined "perverse" as turned the wrong way, not right; distorted from
the right; turned away or deviating from what is right, proper, correct,
etc.