Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.32 seconds)Section 21 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 17 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
National Small Industries Corp.Ltd vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Ors on 17 November, 2008
24. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES
CORPORATION LTD. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND
OTHERS reported in MANU/SC/4845/2008 and brought to
the notice of this Court paragraph Nos.12 and 13 with regard to
relying upon the evidence of the employees of the Government
Company working in Public Limited Companies.
Basant Singh vs Janki Singh And Ors on 2 August, 1966
25. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of BASANT SINGH v. JANKI SINGH
AND OTHERS reported in MANU/SC/0284/1966 and brought
to the notice of this Court paragraph Nos.4 to 6, wherein the
Apex Court made an observation that they are unable to accept
the line of reasoning with regard to correctness of the statement
that she had surrendered her estate and was entitled to
maintenance only. All the statements in the plaint are,
therefore, admissible as evidence. However, the Court is not
bound to accept all the statements as correct. The Court may
accept some of the statements and reject the rest. The High
Court also observed that an admission in a pleading can be used
only for the purpose of suit in which the pleading was filed and
also distinction between and admission made by a party in a
pleading and other admissions. Under the Indian law, an
admission made by a party in a plaint signed and verified by him
may be used as evidence against him in other suits. In other
suits, this admission cannot be regarded as conclusive, and it is
open to the party to show that it is not true. The learned counsel
referring this judgment would submit that Sections 17 to 21 of
the Evidence Act comes to the rescue of the accused in view of
22
the admission given by P.W.1 in the cross-examination and also
the answers elicited from the mouth of the witnesses of the
Company in Delhi proceedings which has been marked as
Ex.D.5.
Shreyas Agro Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Chandrakumar S.B. on 16 February, 2006
26. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of
this Court in the case of SHREYAS AGRO SERVICES PVT. LTD.
v. CHANDRAKUMAR S.B. reported in MANU/KA/8224/2006
and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.3, wherein
it is held that the words "for discharge of any debt or other
liability" in Section 138 of N.I. Act should be interpreted to mean
current existing or past ascertained liabilities. Referring this
judgment, the learned counsel would submit that in the case on
hand, there is no material with regard to current existing or past
ascertained liabilities and first of all there is no statement of
accounts before this Court. Under the circumstances, it cannot
be contended that the cheques are issued in respect of discharge
of any debt or any liability.
Ajodhya Prasad Bhargava vs Bhawani Shanker Bhargava And Anr. on 8 May, 1956
27. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the
Allahabad High Court in the case of AJODHYA PRASAD
BHARGAVA v. BHAWANI SHANKER BHARGAVA AND
23
OTHERS reported in MANU/UP/0001/1957 and brought to
the notice of this Court paragraph Nos.9, 18 and 83, wherein the
Full Bench discussed with regard to the admissions under
Section 21 of the Evidence Act. The party making the admission
may give evidence to rebut this presumption, but unless and
until that is satisfactorily done, the fact admitted must be taken
to be established. The learned counsel referring paragraph
No.83 of the judgment would submit that the admissions being
substantive piece of evidence, there admissibility is not
depending on the appearance or non-appearance of the party as
witness.
Bishwanath Prasad And Others vs Dwarka Prasad (Dead) And Others on 30 October, 1973
28. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of BISHWANATH PRASAD AND
OTHERS v. DWARKA PRASAD AND OTHERS reported in
MANU/SC/0006/1973. Referring this judgment the learned
counsel brought to the notice of this Court the observation made
by the Apex Court with regard to Section 21 and 145 of the
Evidence Act with regard to cardinal distinction between party
who is author of prior statement and witness who is examined
and sought to be discredited by use of his prior statement.
24
Admission by party in former case is substantive evidence if
fulfills requirements of Section 21.