Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for R. V. E. Venkatachala Gounder VS Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V. P. Temple...
2003 8 Supreme 193 : A photocopy of a document can be taken into account by a court of law if it was admitted in evidence without objection. In the case described, photocopies of rent agreements (documents A30 and A34) were admitted in evidence and marked as exhibits without any objection from the opposing party. The court held that since no objection was raised at the time of admission, the failure to object amounts to waiver of the necessity for insisting on formal proof, and the document itself being admissible in evidence. Therefore, the contents of the photocopy were properly considered by the courts below and the High Court erred in ruling them inadmissible solely because they were photocopies. The court emphasized that once a document is admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, an objection to the mode of proof (such as use of a photocopy) cannot be raised later, as this would be fatal to the party failing to object promptly. Thus, a photocopy marked subject to objection can still be taken into account if the objection was not raised at the appropriate time, and the document was otherwise admitted in evidence.Checking relevance for Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta VS New Era Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. ...
2015 0 Supreme(SC) 688 : A photocopy of an agreement marked subject to objection cannot be taken into account by a court of law unless the contents of the document are properly proved. Mere marking as an exhibit and identification of the executor’s signature by one of the witnesses does not constitute legally acceptable evidence or prove the contents of the document. The court must be satisfied that the document is admissible and its contents are proven in accordance with the law, particularly under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, read with Order XLI Rule 27 and Order XIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. If a document is marked as an exhibit subject to objection of proof and admissibility, and no proper proof is provided, the court cannot rely on its contents.Checking relevance for N. N. Global Mercantile Private Limited VS Indo Unique Flame Ltd. ...
2023 0 Supreme(SC) 414 : Under Section 35 of the Stamp Act, 1899, any instrument chargeable with duty that is not duly stamped cannot be taken in evidence or acted upon by a court of law. The second limb of Section 35 specifically prohibits acting upon an unstamped instrument, which includes secondary evidence such as a photocopy. In Jupudi Kesava Rao v. Pulavarthi Venkata Subbarao (1971) 1 SCC 545 and Hariom Agrawal (supra), the Supreme Court held that a copy of an instrument (including a photocopy) cannot be impounded under Section 33, nor can it be admitted as secondary evidence under the Stamp Act. The Court emphasized that ''''there is no scope for inclusion of a copy of a document as an instrument for the purpose of the Stamp Act'''' and that ''''copy of the instrument cannot be validated by impounding and this cannot be admitted as secondary evidence under the Stamp Act, 1899.'''' Therefore, if a photocopy of an agreement is marked subject to objection due to insufficient or lack of stamping, the contents of the document cannot be taken into account by a court of law unless the original instrument is duly stamped and produced.Checking relevance for Bidyut Sarkar VS Kanchilal Pal (Dead) through Lrs. ...
2024 7 Supreme 423 : A photocopy of an agreement marked subject to objection can be taken into account by a court of law only if the deficiency in stamp duty and any applicable penalty has been duly paid and cleared. Under Section 35 of the Stamp Act, 1899, an instrument not duly stamped is inadmissible in evidence unless the proper duty (or amount required to make up the deficiency) and penalty are paid. Section 40 empowers the Collector to assess the deficiency and penalty, and Section 42 provides that the instrument becomes admissible only after endorsement by the Collector or the admitting authority confirming payment of duty and penalty. In the case at hand, the agreement was marked as Ex.-1 with objection, and the Trial Court had directed the Collector to assess the deficiency. However, since the plaintiff failed to pursue the proceedings before the Collector and no determination or payment was made, the document remained inadmissible. Therefore, the contents of the document cannot be taken into account unless the statutory requirements for admissibility—specifically, payment of deficiency and penalty and official endorsement—are fulfilled.Checking relevance for Shyamal Kumar Roy VS Sushil Kumar Agarwal...
2006 0 Supreme(SC) 1007 : Yes, the contents of a document marked subject to objection can be taken into account by a court of law. According to the judgment in Mujibar Rahman Mondal v. Md. Abdulla Molla & Ors. [2005 (1) CLJ (Cal.) 249], if a document is marked as an exhibit with an objection (e.g., ''''subject to objection''''), the objection has not been judicially determined, and thus Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act does not apply. In such a case, the document may be used by the parties in examination and cross-examination of witnesses, and its contents can be considered by the court. The court emphasized that Section 36 only comes into operation once a document has been admitted in evidence and used in the proceedings, and the objection has been judicially determined. Since the objection was merely postponed and not decided, the document''''s contents are admissible.
