- Documents were presented as evidence without any objection from the defendants.
- The documents were in proper custody and were part of the official record of the appellant-Corporation.
- The documents were part of the chain of correspondence.
- PW1's deposition stated that the two letters were received from the Federation.
- The defendant-Federation did not dispute this statement by directing any cross-examination or making any suggestion to the contrary
- The documents were presented as evidence without any objection from the defendants. These documents were in proper custody and were part of the official record of the appellant-Corporation. They were also part of the chain of correspondence. The deposition of PW1, which stated that the two letters were received from the Federation, was not disputed by the defendant-Federation.
- There was no cross-examination or suggestion to the contrary.
- Could be read in evidence
- PLRonline 281265
- Full Judgment with detailed headnotes for Online Subscribers (opens automatically) (Click to subscribe Trial Pack)
- Log In
- Home
- A
- B
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- H
- I
- J
- L
- M
- N
- O
- P
- R
- S
- S
- Sale of Goods Act
- Sarfaesi
- Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992
- Service Matters
- Service of orders on a government servant
- Sexual Offence
- Special Marriage Act, 1954
- Specific Performance
- Specific Relief Act, 1963
- Stamp Act, 1899
- Stamp duty
- Stay
- Suit for declaration / possession
- Succession Act
- Suit for recovery of Money
- T
- V
- W
- Log In
- Home
- A
- B
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- H
- I
- J
- L
- M
- N
- O
- P
- R
- S
- S
- Sale of Goods Act
- Sarfaesi
- Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992
- Service Matters
- Service of orders on a government servant
- Sexual Offence
- Special Marriage Act, 1954
- Specific Performance
- Specific Relief Act, 1963
- Stamp Act, 1899
- Stamp duty
- Stay
- Suit for declaration / possession
- Succession Act
- Suit for recovery of Money
- T
- V
- W
Bail - Granted - Admissibility of Panchanama under Section 27 requires further examination during trial. 2023 PLRonline 0107 (Bom.)
[SC] CrPC S. 360 - Probation - accused engaged in an objectionable act by entering the chamber of the Commissioner in the Directorate while the Commissioner was performing his official duties as a public servant - Appellant also verbally abused the Commissioner using offensive language - Leniency can not be shown. [2023 SCeJ 0234 = (2023-2)210 PLR 582 (SC)]
[SC] Evidence – Documents were presented as evidence without any objection from the defendants.
0
