Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.18 seconds)The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 10 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
C.M. Beena And Anr vs P.N. Ramachandra Rao on 22 March, 2004
"The third and the last and a subsidiary submission on
behalf of the election petitioner, on election expenses was
that Shri Dal Bahadur Singh not having been produced
by the original respondent, some sort of presumption
arises against the original respondent. I do not think that
it is possible to shift a burden of the petitioner on to the
original respondent whose case never was that Shri Dal
Bahadur Singh spent any money on her behalf. The case
of M. Chyenna Reddy vs Ramchandra Rao, (1972) 40
Ele LR 390 at p. 415 (SC) was relied upon to submit that
a presumption may arise against a successful candidate
from the non-production of available evidence to support
his version. Such a presumption, under Section 114
Evidence Act, it has to be remembered, is always
optional and one of fact, depending upon the whole set of
facts. It is not obligatory."
Indira Nehru Gandhi (Smt.) vs Raj Narain & Anr on 24 June, 1975
Yet again in Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Shri Raj Narain (AIR
1975 SC 2299), law has been laid down by this Court in the following
terms :
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Gopal, Krishnaji Ketkar vs Mahomed Haji Latif & Ors on 19 April, 1968
This Court in Gopal Krishnaji
case (supra) did not lay down any law that in all situations the presumption
in terms of Section 114(f) of the Indian Evidence Act must be drawn.
The said decision, thus, has no application in the fact of the present case.
1