Showing : 51-60 of 113 Results

PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2012
Details
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, Section 13- - Eviction - Bona fide requirement - Proof - Evidence on record shows that father of landlord is running jewellery shop in rented shop - Tenant also admitted in witness box that landlord has experience in business of jewellery - Held, bonafide requirement of landlord for running business of..........
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 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..........
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 3, Rule 1, 2-- Power of attorney - Statements of power of attorney on both sides could be read in evidence as the facts relating to sale transaction having taken place in front of them were in their personal knowledge and, therefore, no, appearance of plaintiff and defendant themselves in the witness box could..........
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Agreement to sell-- Suit for specific performance - Defendant/vendor not stepping into the witness box and evidence was given only by her husband - Whether insufficient? - Held, No - It is for the plaintiff who approaches Court to prove that he was ready and willing to perform the contact...........

Showing : 51-60 of 113 Results