Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)Balraj Taneja & Anr vs Sunil Madan & Anr on 8 September, 1999
"28. What emerges from a reading of Balraj Taneja [Balraj Taneja v. Sunil
Madan, (1999) 8 SCC 396] , with which we wholeheartedly concur, is that
only on being satisfied that there is no fact which needs to be proved on
account of deemed admission, could the court pass a judgment against the
defendant who has not filed the written statement; but if the plaint itself
suggests involvement of disputed questions of fact, it would not be safe
for the court to pass a judgment without requiring the plaintiff to prove the
facts.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 17 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Nagubai Ammal & Others vs B. Shama Rao & Others on 26 April, 1956
20. The Supreme Court in the case of Nagubai Ammal vs. B. Sharma
Rao, reported in (1956) 1 SCC 698 , has held that admission is not a
conclusive as to the truth of the matter stated therein but is only a piece of
evidence, and weight to be attached to which must depend on the
circumstances under which it is made.
Section 21 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Shri Bharat Girdharlal Thakkar vs Shri. Babulal Bhagirath Sarda (Since ... on 28 November, 2018
19. The Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Singh vs. Bhagirath i,
reported in AIR 1966 SC 405 , has held that although admissions are
substantive evidence in view of Section 17 and 21 of Evidence Act, but they
are not the conclusive proof.
Asma Lateef vs Shabbir Ahmad on 22 November, 2016
22. The Supreme Court in the case of Asma Lateef vs. Shabbir Ahmad ,
reported in (2024) 4 SCC 696 , has held as under:
1