Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.S.SONAK, B.P.COLABAWALLA, R.I.CHAGLA
Armin R. Panthaky – Appellant
Versus
Rohinton Panthaky – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This reference arises in Appeal No. 311 of 2014, challenging the order dated 3 April 2014 made by the learned Parsi Chief Metropolitan Court, Mumbai (Hon’ble Justice G S Patel) in Parsi Suit No. 20 of 2013. By the order dated 3 April 2014, Patel J has held that under the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 (“PMDA”), there is nothing which denudes the Court from exercising its discretion to direct or allow the recording of evidence before a Court Commissioner in terms of Order XVIII Rule 4 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”).
3. By order dated 31 July 2014 in Appeal No. 311 of 2014 against Patel J’s order, the Division Bench comprising Mohit S Shah, C J and M S Sonak J, made the following order of reference:
It is clarified that we are not granting any ad-interim stay of the proceedings before the trial Court.”
4. Accordingly, the question that arises in thi
The court affirmed that under the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936, courts retain discretion to allow evidence recording before a Court Commissioner, emphasizing procedural flexibility and judici....
Chapter X-A of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1967 was not merely a proviso or an exception to Order 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the Court could exercise power under this ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the second part of Order 18 Rule 3A of the CPC is mandatory in nature, and the recording of a party's statement after other witnesses can only....
It is an archaic practice that during the evidence- collecting stage, whenever any objection is raised regarding admissibility of any material in evidence the court does not proceed further without p....
Every judge who presides over a criminal trial, has authority and duty to decide on validity or relevance of questions asked of witnesses. Courts in all criminal trials should, at beginning of trial,....
The recall of a witness under Order XVIII Rule 17 should be for clarifying doubts and not to fill up any lacuna or omission in the evidence already recorded.
The right to lead evidence is pivotal to a fair trial and partakes of the character of natural justice and fair play. The recall of a witness under Order XVIII Rule 17 should be for clarifying any do....
Point of law: In any case, it is settled legal position that no litigant can be denied the opportunity to prove his case, unless it is clear that presence of such witnesses is not necessary at all. T....
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
