Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.52 seconds)
Vardhman Properties Ltd. vs North Delhi Power Ltd. on 6 October, 2009 cites

Union Of India (Uoi) vs Mohan Behari Jasod Kumari And Ors. on 2 September, 2004

(I) Union of India v. Mohan Behari Jasod Kumari, 2004 (114) DLT 516 CS (OS) No. 1305/2005 Page 13 of 14 "27. It is a settled principle of law that irrespective of the burden of proof, the party in possession of the best evidence is bound to produce the same. In this behalf regard be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court of India reported at AIR 1968 SC 1413. The forwarding note was in the power and possession of the defendant no. 1. It is not disputed that the same was material contemporaneous documentary evidence which was not produced. Adverse inference is, therefore, to be drawn against the defendant no. 1 for failure to produce the documents."
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - G Mittal - Full Document

Gopal, Krishnaji Ketkar vs Mahomed Haji Latif & Ors on 19 April, 1968

(II) Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mahomed Haji Latif & Ors., (1968) 3 SCR 862 (at page 866) "Even if the burden of proof does not lie on a party the Court may draw an adverse inference if he withholds important documents in his possession which can throw light on the facts at issue. It is not, in our opinion, a sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court the best evidence which is in their possession which could throw light upon the issues in controversy and to rely upon the issues in controversy and to rely upon the abstract doctrine of onus of proof."
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 888 - V Ramaswami - Full Document
1