Showing : 91-100 of 185 Results

DELHI HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2012
Details
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125-- Grant of maintenance - Appeal for enhancement - Grant of maintenance at Rs.60,000/- P.M. in favour of wife - Contention of husband that wife was residing in matrimonial home and is providing food to wife - Wife had a plot of land 1,000 sq. yard, however said plot is not earning her any income -..........
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2012
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- Dishonour of cheque - Presumption u/s.139 - Rebuttal of - Standard of proof - Held, when an accused has to rebut presumption u/s.139 of the Act, standard of proof for doing so is that of "Preponderance of probabilities" - If accused is able to raise a probable defence, which creates doubt about..........
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2012
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Held, it is a rebuttable presumption and standard of proof for doing so is that of preponderance of probabilities - Therefore, if accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about existence of legally recoverable debt or liability,..........
PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2012
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 18, Rule 17-- Recalling of witness - Defendant in his written statement nowhere pleaded that his signatures had been taken on blank paper which later on converted into impugned agreement - Agreement purports to bear thumb impression and not signatures of defendant - PW2 in witness box stated about due execution..........
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2012
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 9, Rule 13-- Ex parte decree - Setting aside - Limitation - Knowledge of ex parte decree - Petitioner himself not stepping into the witness box and not stating as to when passing of ex parte decree came to his knowledge - Held, statement of petitioner's attorney as witness cannot fill the gap - It was only..........
PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2012
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 41, Rule 27-- Suit for specific performance - Additional evidence - No explanation why certified copy of alleged agreement was not produced by plaintiff at appropriate stage of his evidence - Said agreement was well within knowledge of present plaintiff while plaintiff was leading his evidence - Held, only..........
PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Evidence Act, 1872, Section 65, 66-- Adverse possession - Plea of - Tenability - According to defendant No.1, he is not in possession of disputed property - He has sublet the property to defendant Nos.2 and 3 - Defendant Nos.2 and 3 have never contested the suit - They have not appeared in witness box to support case of defendant..........
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 91, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 114, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 12, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 12, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 340-- Summons for production of documents - SP Vigilance conducting investigation - Summons for production of documents issued by ASI - It is SP Vigilance who is competent to issue summons for production of documents - If he had authorized ASI complainant to issue summons on his behalf, then he could..........
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- Dishonour of cheque - Proof - Impugned cheque signed by applicant - Cheque was returned dishonoured on the ground of non sufficiency of funds - Demand notice issued by respondent neither replied by nor the amount of such cheque was paid by him - In defence-statement applicant-accused stated that..........
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 313, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 42, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 42, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 42, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 50, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 57, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 20-- Sample sent for analysis 10 grams - FSL found it to be 20 grams - It was for the person who had drawn the sample to have entered into the witness box and explain how much sample he had drawn and how there was discrepancy in its quantity - Held, sample which was drawn was tampered with and no..........

Showing : 91-100 of 185 Results