Back
RAVI NATH TILHARI
Sai Resource Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Aspire Techno Engineers – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is the defendant in COS No.5 of 2024 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Visakhapatnam (in short 'Special Court').
3. The respondent/plaintiff filed OS No.222 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the learned II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,38,21,843/- together with interest @ 25% per annum from the petitioner/defendant.
4. Later on, on the objection and filing of the written statement, the learned Additional District Judge returned the plaint, for filing before the Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam, the nature of dispute being the commercial dispute. The parties were directed to appear before the Special Judge. The O.S. was renumbered as COS No.5 of 2024. In the C.O.S., the petitioner/defendant filed IA No.326 of 2024 under Sections 63 , 65 and 114 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 (in short 'Act') seeking to permit the Memorandum of Agreement, (MOA) dated 16.09.2019, as secondary evidence and mark the same as exhibit on behalf of DW1. The respondent/plaintiff filed counter, and on consideration, th
Secondary evidence can only be admitted when original documents are unavailable, and prior notice to produce such documents must comply with Section 66 of the Evidence Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the party seeking to admit secondary evidence must establish the non-production of the original document as required under the Indian Evidence....
The main legal point established is the interpretation and application of Section 65 and Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 in allowing secondary evidence and the circumstances under which no....
The court established that secondary evidence is inadmissible without a foundational explanation for the absence of primary evidence, emphasizing strict adherence to evidentiary rules.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the disclosure of the source of obtaining a document and the name of the person who got the photocopy of the document prepared is not a mandat....
Secondary evidence requires cogent evidence of document loss; mere assertions do not suffice under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The best evidence available should be produced before resorting to secondary evidence.
A photocopy of a document cannot be admitted as secondary evidence without satisfying the preconditions set forth in Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, including proof of the original's loss or a....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
