Federal Court Putrajaya

We agree with the Plaintiff that the burden of proof in reliance on a reasonable endeavours clause falls first on the obligee, ie, the Defendant. ... [114] The Court of Appeal, they submitted, has shifted the burden to the Defendant to lead evidence to demonstrate that the reliance on the clause is justified rather than the burden to do so to be borne by the Plaintiff. ... The burden of proof lies with the Defendant as theobligee....

Federal Court Putrajaya

We agree with the Plaintiff that the burden of proof in reliance on a reasonable endeavours clause falls first on the obligee, ie, the Defendant. ... The burden of proof lies with the Defendant as theobligee is consistent with the classic juridical aphorism "semper necessitasprobandi incumbit ei qui agif (he who asserts must prove) which is statutorily recognised by s 101 of our Evidence Act 1950 [Act 50]. ... [114] The Court of Appeal, they submitted, has shifted the burde....

High Court Malaya Shah Alam

In this regard, the Plaintiff has the burden to prove the following matters in the Assessment (Compensation): (1) the Plaintiff's loss "naturally arose in the usual course of things" from the Defendants' Breach [Clause l(ii)] within the meaning of the first limb of (viii) If there is a dispute as to what constitutes reasonable compensation, the burden of proof falls on the defaulting party to show that the damages clause including the sum stated therein is unreasonable." ... only be payable to Defendan....

2002 0 Supreme(Raj) 1417

burden be placed upon the defendant. ... Since the defendant respondent No. 1 issued notice to change the existing state of affairs, therefore, burden was upon the respondent defendant to prove the fact that the three units named in the notice issued by the respondent No. 1 are running in the same premises and to prove this fact the defendant ... In the trial Court plaintiff appeared as PW-1 whereas defendant No. 1 produced DW-1 Ma....

2021 Supreme(US)(ca3) 4

to the reporting requirement or the Government’s burden to prove falsity. ... Whether the Government Met Its Burden to Prove Falsity Having defined the Government’s burden to prove fal- sity, we now consider whether it carried that burden by intro- ducing sufficient evidence at trial. ... to an objectively reasonable interpretation un- der which a defendant’s statement is true—does not “fairly dis- close[],” Lanier, 520 U.S. at....

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

reporting requirement or the Government’s burden to prove falsity. ... Whether the Government Met Its Burden to Prove Falsity Having defined the Government’s burden to prove fal- sity, we now consider whether it carried that burden by intro- ducing sufficient evidence at trial. ... The Government’s Burden to Prove Falsity We begin with the Government’s burden to prove#HL_EN....

High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur

has failed to prove the said claim. ... Neither did the Defendant prove that the company could have landed these projects in any event. Therefore, I find that these claims are mere conjectures or expectations by the Defendant without any real basis shown to this Court to support these contentions. ... This is a personal issue between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. As a result, the notice clause as provided in cl 21 must be complied with. ... To repeat, no such clause#HL_END....

the authorization by the company (1st defendant) is only confined to projects successfully lobbied by Donee (2nd and 3rd defendant). - Clause 11 and 13 It is the submission of counsel for the 1st defendant that these clauses are conditional precedent and unless ... But in our judgment the principle applies with equal force to contract interpretation." ... The only witness called to prove that the loss and damages from such project was the plaintiff himself. ... They have to p....

High Court Sabah & Sarawak Kota Kinabalu

They have to prove it.' "The only evidence called by the plaintiff to prove damages is the bare statement by PW1 in court, ....." ... ) is only confined to projects successfully lobbied by Donee (2nd and 3rd defendant). - Clause 11 and 13 It is the submission of counsel for the 1st defendant that these clauses are conditional precedent and unless and until they are satisfied the 1st and 2nd power of attorney are ineffective ... But in our judgment the principle applies with equal force to contract #HL_S....

1978 0 Supreme(Kar) 202

prove that he (the defendant) was not entitled to the benefits under the Act. ... Hegde, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the non-obstante clause in Sec. 7 provides that the burden of proving that the defendant is not entitled to the protection under the Act, is on the creditor-plaintiff and that, hence, the learned civil Judge was in error in holding that such burden ... No. 3, made by the defendant praying that the plaintiff might be directed to le....

2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 954

When a case involves interpretation of a clause or some clauses of an agreement and the Arbitral Tribunal gives an interpretation which is plausible, the Court should not substitute that interpretation for its own interpretation only because the Court takes a different view or feels that the other interpretation is a better interpretation. It is also settled law that the Arbitral Tribunal is the final adjudicator of facts and evidence adduced before it. (State of Rajasthan v. Nav Bharat Construction Co. 2010 (2) SCC 182).

2020 0 Supreme(Ker) 691

Even if clause (b) was noticed there would not have been a different interpretation possible. We, however, do not subscribe to the view of the learned author in the authoritative text since clause (b) and clause (c) are two sides of the same coin. As we noticed, Section 5(2) expands the scope of total income. With respect to a non-resident, it inter alia includes all income from whatever source derived, accruing or arising or is deemed to accrue or arise, to him in India during such year.

2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 800

It is well settled that when a case involves interpretation of a clause or some clauses of an agreement and the Arbitral Tribunal gives an interpretation which is plausible, the Court would not substitute that interpretation for its own interpretation only because the Court takes a different view or feels that the other interpretation is a better interpretation. This view is fortified by the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Nav Bharat Construction Co., reported in 2010 (2) SCC 182 and P.R.Shah, supra (P.R.Shah, Shares & Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. Vs. B.H....

2018 0 Supreme(Mad) 731

It is well settled that when a case involves interpretation of a clause or some clauses of an agreement and the Arbitral Tribunal gives an interpretation which is plausible, the Court would not substitute that interpretation for its own interpretation only because the Court takes a different view or feels that the other interpretation is a better interpretation. This view is fortified by the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Nav Bharat Construction Co., reported in (2010) 2 SCC 182 and P.R.Shah, supra.

2017 0 Supreme(Cal) 865

It is the burden of defendant to conclusively prove that plea. According to defendant’s plea, Gobind Prasad Kedia is a broker and he had several transactions with defendant where he was the mediator in loan transactions of both the suits. No evidence was adduced to prove as to whether said G.P. Kedia is alive or not. However, Gobind Prasad Kedia was not called by defendant as a witness.