Skip to main content

Court must apply its mind to the entire evidence on which a party has placed reliance for proving his case

In Vilas Dinkar Bhat vs State Of Maharashtra, the question arises in this appeal was about the caste of the appellant­whether the appellant belongs to a caste, known as “Thakar”­ a Schedule Tribe, or not. According to the appellant, he by birth belongs to “Thakar” caste which is a Schedule Tribe and, therefore, he is entitled to claim a declaration to that effect in his favour and for this the appellant had filed as many as 50 documents in support of his case to prove that he belongs to a caste “Thakar” but unfortunately neither the Committee and nor the High Court examined the documents in their proper perspective in their respective jurisdiction and, therefore, the matter needs to be reconsidered by the Committee afresh.

The Supreme Court on appeal held that the Committee though considered some documents filed by the appellant but did not consider all the documents on which the appellant had placed reliance. The High Court in its writ jurisdiction declined to go into the merits of the writ petition stating that since the issue involves questions of fact, it is not possible to examine the case on facts in its writ jurisdiction. It is more so when the Committee probed the issue in detail on facts. 

When a party relies upon any evidence, whether it is oral or documentary, in support of his case, the Court/Committee/Authority, as the case may be, and especially the original Court is under an obligation to apply its mind to the entire documentary evidence on which the party has placed reliance for proving his case and record its reasoned findings whether accepting the evidence or rejecting it. What is important is the consideration of entire evidence adduced by the parties in accordance with law while deciding the case. 

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

Requirement of Landlord For His Own Occupation Includes Occupation By Family Member

Supreme Court in Mehmooda Gulshan vs Javaid Hussain Mungloo has held that requirement of landlord for his own occupation could also mean occupation by a member of family and mere non-examination of family member, who intends to do the business, cannot be taken as a ground for repelling reasonable requirement of landlord.
Post a Comment
Read more