Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.32 seconds)
Sheikhah Fadiah Saad Al-Abdullah ... vs Sanjay Mishrimal Punamiya And 2 Ors on 18 November, 2022 cites

Khatri & Ors. Etc vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 10 March, 1981

37. Dr. Saraf submitted that when faced with all this overwhelming evidence, especially, the investigation carried out by the CID, the Plaintiff sought to raise a contention that under Section 162 of the Cr.P.C, the statements made to the police officer in the course of the investigation cannot be relied upon in the present proceedings. Dr. Saraf submitted that this submission is ex-facie contrary to the wordings of the said Section and is in any event now covered by a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khatri & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar [(1981) 2 SCC 493]. Dr. Saraf submitted that the aforesaid decision now clearly lays down that the bar under Section 162 is only in the inquiry or trial in respect of the offence which was under investigation at that time when the statement was made. It was held that the said provision has no application in civil proceedings and the statement made before the police officer in the course of the investigation can be used as evidence in civil proceedings, provided it is otherwise relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. Dr. Saraf submitted that the mere fact that this objection was raised clearly shows that the Plaintiff having approached this Court with a false case, now seeks to obstruct any credible material which Laxmi page 59 of 122 nms 313-14 ORDER.docx clearly indicates the falsity of their case. According to Dr. Saraf, it speaks volumes on the conduct of the Plaintiff. Dr. Saraf submitted that in the absence of this Court having before it, the evidence being led by the parties and in the face of a lack of an affidavit in rejoinder on behalf of the Plaintiff, the material gathered by the CID in the course of its detailed investigation and the statements recorded of various persons, are of great relevance and significance, before this Court decides whether any interim relief ought to be granted in favour of the Plaintiff. Dr. Saraf submitted that in the facts of the present case, it is nowhere in dispute that Faisal Essa did have the authority to create tenancies in the building Al-Sabah Court. The Plaintiff does not proceed on the basis that Faisal Essa had no authority of the owners to create any tenancy. In fact, in paragraph 6 of the Plaint it is admitted that Sheikh Saad, during his lifetime, had authorized Faisal Essa and after the death of Sheikh Saad the Plaintiff had granted the necessary and specific authority to Faisal Essa to take care of the building Al-Sabah Court. Dr. Saraf submitted that from the plaint itself it is clear that Faisal Essa had the authority to create tenancies in the building Al-Sabah Court and this fact is undisputed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 148 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document
1   2 3 Next