Skip to main content

Mere permission to produce documents as secondary evidence does not amount to admittance of evidence by the court

In Rajendra Mahadev Todkar v. M/s Paranjape Schemes (Construction) Company Limited, order dated 05-01-2018, the Bombay High Court heard a petition challenging the order of the trial court that had allowed admission of letters by the respondent as secondary evidence. The petitioner contended that there was nothing on record to show that those letters had been issued by the respondent and the respondent’s contention that they were in the possession of the petitioner was also not true. Therefore, the petitioner requested that the application seeking request to produce letters in the form of secondary evidence be rejected.

The Court upheld the decision of the trial court allowing the respondent to produce secondary evidence stating that the necessary foundation for production of the secondary evidence had been established but merely because the respondent was allowed to lead secondary evidence does not imply that they will be exhibited or admitted in evidence.

Therefore, the issue as to admitting them in evidence had been left open by the trial court and the High Court to be dealt with at an appropriate stage and the petition was dismissed.

Article referred: http://blog.scconline.com/post/2018/01/18/mere-permission-produce-documents-secondary-evidence-not-amount-admittance-evidence-court/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more