Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.19 seconds)Section 124 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 38 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Ijjatali Talukdar And Anr. vs Emperor on 23 June, 1943
In Ijjatali Talukdar v. Emperor AIR 1943 Cal 539(E), Das, J., who delivered the judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, referred to the principles enunciated by the Judicial Committee in Henry Greer Robinson v. State of South Australia AIR 1931 PC 254(F), and said.
The Collector Of Jaunpur vs Jamna Prasad on 30 January, 1922
This distinction between the two matters involved in the section is pointed out and recognized in Venkatachala Chetti v. Sampathu Chettiar ILR 32 Mad 62(B), which case has been treated as having settled the law for the Presidency in the later decision in Nagaraja Pillai v. Secretary of State AIR 1915 Mad 1113(C), cited by the lower Court : see also Collector of Jaunpur v. Jamma Prasad AIR 1922 All 37(D).
Section 162 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Nagaraja Pillai And Anr. vs The Secretary Of State For India In ... on 24 November, 1914
This distinction between the two matters involved in the section is pointed out and recognized in Venkatachala Chetti v. Sampathu Chettiar ILR 32 Mad 62(B), which case has been treated as having settled the law for the Presidency in the later decision in Nagaraja Pillai v. Secretary of State AIR 1915 Mad 1113(C), cited by the lower Court : see also Collector of Jaunpur v. Jamma Prasad AIR 1922 All 37(D).
The Secretary Of State For India In ... vs Khaja Mahomed Jan And Ors. on 8 February, 1917
The principle enunciated in 1942 AC 624(G), was quoted with approval and applied in construing Sections 123. 124 and 162 of the Indian Evidence Act in Governor-General In Council v. Peer Mahomed AIR 1950 E, Punj 228(H), and Din Bai v. Dominion of India .
State Of Madras vs Sayed Abdurahiman Baffakki Thangal on 8 January, 1954
8. The learned Counsel for the respondent argued that the privilege under Section 123 has not been properly claimed here because the affidavit was filed only by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and not by the Secretary to the Government in the Department of Co-operation. He relied on the English decisions already cited, according to which the claim has to be made in the form of an affidavit either by the Minister or by the Secretary of State in charge of the department concerned. But as pointed out by Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., in State of Madras v. S. A. Baffakki , the English decisions are based on Common Law, in the absence of any statutory provision similar to Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act.