Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 4485
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT, MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ
SRI THENANDAL FILMS PROPRIETOR – Appellant
Versus
SRI THENANDAL FILMS PROPRIETOR – Respondent
SLP(C) No.-001023 / 2024
Mr. M.P. Parthiban, AOR; Ms. Priyaranjani Nagamuthu, Adv.; Mr. R. Sudhakaran, Adv.; Mr. T. Hari Hara Sudhan, Adv.; Ms. Shalini Mishra, Adv.; Mr. Bilal Mansoor, Adv.; Mr. Shreyas Kaushal, Adv.; Mr. P.V.K. Deivendran, Adv.; Mr. Dhananjay Garg, AOR; Mr. Abhishek Garg, Adv.; Mr. D.K. Garg, Adv.; Mr. Dhananjay Garg, Adv.; Mr. Ishaan Tiwari, Adv.; Ms. Anjun Kaur, Adv.
Headnote:(A) Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections related to admissibility and proof of documents - The High Court protected the petitioner's right to raise objections regarding the admissibility and relevancy of xerox copies as secondary evidence - The court found no reason to interfere with the High Court's judgment. (Paras 2-3)
(B) Special Leave Petition - Dismissal of the petition while maintaining the liberty granted by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the High Court's decision regarding the admissibility of documents.
Issues: The main issue was the admissibility and proof of secondary evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner retains the right to challenge the admissibility of documents, affirming the High Court's protective stance.
Result: Special Leave Petition dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
-
The Supreme Court of India upheld the decision of the High Court regarding the admissibility of xerox copies of documents as secondary evidence. The High Court had protected the petitioner’s right to object to the admissibility and relevancy of such documents (!) .
-
The court found no reason to interfere with the High Court’s judgment, emphasizing that the petitioner retains the right to challenge the admissibility of documents, including objections related to their proof and relevance (!) .
-
The Special Leave Petition was dismissed, confirming the court’s agreement with the High Court’s ruling on the matter (!) .
-
The liberty granted by the High Court to raise objections regarding the admissibility and relevancy of xerox copies as secondary evidence was maintained (!) .
-
All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of as a consequence of this decision (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal guidance.
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the material placed on record. 2. In view of the fact that the High Court in para 17 of the impugned judgment has fully protected the right of the petitioner to raise objections with regard to admissibility, proof and Digitally signed by satish kumar yadav Date: 2024.02.10 11:16:22 IST Reason:
- Signature Not Verified relevancy of the xerox copies of the documents, which are sought to be produced as secondary evidence, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras. 3. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. 4. However, the liberty as granted by the High Court is maintained. 5. As a result, the pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of. (SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (PREETHI T.C.) DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH)
