Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Relevance of Findings - Findings of fact by courts are generally binding and should not be interfered with unless they are perverse, unsupported by evidence, or based on inadmissible or irrelevant evidence. Courts emphasize that appellate courts should respect concurrent findings of fact unless a substantial question of law is involved or the findings are manifestly erroneous ["2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 1042"] ["2023 0 Supreme(Guj) 443"] ["2023 0 Supreme(Guj) 442"] ["
PERBADANAN KEMAJUAN NEGERI SELANGOR vs PORT KLANG GOLF RESORT SDN BHD & ORS - High Court
"].Application of Legal Principles - Courts have clarified that assertions of relevance or necessity of documents alone are insufficient for discovery; the documents must be directly related to the issues in dispute and necessary to fairly resolve the case or reduce costs. Mere relevance claims without substantive connection to the facts or issues are inadequate ["
ALLINON ADVANCE TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD vs TETUAN KAMARUDIN & PARTNERS & ORS - High Court
"] ["SIM CHENG HO vs LEE YEN PIN & ORS - High Court
"].Findings in Specific Contexts - In criminal and civil cases, courts stress that findings based on material on record are final unless shown to be erroneous or perverse. For example, findings of fraud, negligence, or ownership based on evidence are upheld unless the appellate court finds clear legal error ["2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 1042"] ["
TAN SRI DATO KAM WOON WAH vs HANNAH KAM ZHEN YI & ANOR - High Court
"] ["PERBADANAN KEMAJUAN NEGERI SELANGOR vs PORT KLANG GOLF RESORT SDN BHD & ORS - High Court
"].Interference and Appeal Standards - Courts generally refrain from interfering with factual findings unless they are contrary to law or based on no evidence. The appellate review involves weighing the evidence but respects the trial court's credibility assessments unless there is a legal or factual error ["
FALALLOON v. CASSIM
"] ["MOHAMEDALY ADAMJEE v. HADAD SADEEN
"] ["2023 0 Supreme(Guj) 443"].Relevance and Discovery - The courts consistently hold that documents sought through discovery must be relevant to the issues at hand; documents not related or necessary to the case are not subject to discovery. Assertions of relevance need to be substantiated with a clear connection to the factual issues ["
ALLINON ADVANCE TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD vs TETUAN KAMARUDIN & PARTNERS & ORS - High Court
"] ["2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 2794"] ["SIM CHENG HO vs LEE YEN PIN & ORS - High Court
"].Analysis and Conclusion:The overarching principle is that courts are reluctant to disturb well-founded factual findings unless there is a legal error, perversity, or lack of evidence. Relevance in discovery is strictly limited to documents directly related to the issues in dispute, and mere assertions are insufficient without supporting factual linkage. Therefore, relevant or conclusive findings are to be upheld, and discovery requests must demonstrate clear relevance and necessity. This ensures judicial efficiency and respects the integrity of factual determinations made by lower courts ["2022 0 Supreme(Chh) 491"] ["2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 1042"].
References:["2022 0 Supreme(Chh) 491"]["
TAN SRI DATO KAM WOON WAH vs HANNAH KAM ZHEN YI & ANOR - High Court
"]["2018 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 1214"]["2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 1042"]["1969 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5"]["2023 0 Supreme(MP) 178"]["2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 2794"]["ALLINON ADVANCE TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD vs TETUAN KAMARUDIN & PARTNERS & ORS - High Court
"]["FALALLOON v. CASSIM
"]
In the complex world of litigation, understanding how courts handle appeals—especially second appeals—can make all the difference. A common question arises: finding relevant or conclusion—in other words, how do courts determine relevant findings and conclusions based on evidence and law? This is particularly crucial in second appeals under , where the scope is narrowly defined. This blog post breaks down the principles governing appellate interference, the distinction between questions of law and fact, and practical insights from key judgments. Whether you're a litigant, lawyer, or simply curious about Indian civil procedure, here's what you need to know.
Note: This is general information based on legal precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for your case.
Courts must interpret and decide legal questions based on evidence and applicable principles, but —especially in second appeals—is restricted. Under , the can only interfere on , not for reappreciating facts. Findings of fact by lower courts are generally binding unless they are or based on 2006 3 Supreme 631.
As emphasized, A decision based on , does not refer only to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding 2023 8 Supreme 194. This underscores that appellate courts aren't there to substitute their views lightly.
Here are the core takeaways:
These principles prevent appellate backlog and ensure consistency 2006 3 Supreme 631.
Lower court findings bind appellate courts unless shown . For instance, in Will validity cases, courts examine execution, not reappraise evidence 2006 3 Supreme 631. In parentage disputes, no perversity means no interference 2003 1 Supreme 4.
A landmark view: Jurisdiction under second appeal not to be exercised merely because an alternate view is possible – Interference on findings of fact permitted in exceptional cases, i.e., when finding is based on either inadmissible or, 2023 8 Supreme 194. High Courts must frame substantial questions upfront and hear parties before altering them.
Statute or is a question of law; factual inferences are not. Misconstruction justifies appeal 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 1116. Example: Will interpretation failure is a legal error 2006 3 Supreme 631.
In suits, overturning readiness/willingness findings without perversity is improper 2023 8 Supreme 194. Courts must provide hearing opportunities.
Civil findings don't bind criminal cases. A civil loss doesn't halt prosecution unless conclusive 2002 6 Supreme 313. For theft (), dishonest intent is key 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 1116.
In disciplinary matters, inquiry opinions support authority decisions, but no point-by-point rebuttal needed unless violated 1999 9 Supreme 42. The factual findings of the disciplinary authority are not open to challenge... Courts will, however, interfere with the finding, if it is based on or is so unreasonable 2014 0 Supreme(AP) 661.
Disciplinary Boards handle procedure, not substantive findings; they affirm/reject with reasons
.
Long cohabitation presumes marriage, rebuttable by contrary proof 1996 1 Supreme 361. Mutation/school records are admissible but not conclusive 2003 1 Supreme 4.
Criminal processes demand material allegations; suspicion suffices not 2019 5 Supreme 403. Standard in discipline:
.
In license revocations (), authorities consider public peace; courts defer if relevant factors weighed 2009 0 Supreme(All) 1897 2009 0 Supreme(All) 1898. The Licensing Authority has power to suspend or revoke the licence, if such authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety 2009 0 Supreme(All) 1898.
Merger of cadres requires criteria for seniority; states must fix principles 2007 0 Supreme(Bom) 566.
These illustrate broader deference to initial findings unless flawed.
The law prioritizes finality in facts, reserving second appeals for substantial legal issues. By understanding these boundaries, parties avoid futile litigation. Key takeaway: Demonstrate perversity or legal error—don't seek re-trials.
References
Stay informed, litigate smartly.
#SecondAppealCPC, #SubstantialQuestionOfLaw, #AppellateReview
But I cannot see how could that section have any application when the existence of that judgment as apart from any finding contained therein or even the finding itself could neither be inconsistent with any fact in issue or a relevant fact. ... In that context while deciding the said question the Court observed thus :- "In other words, the short point to decide is whether the finding on certain facts by a civil Court is relevant before the criminal Court when it is called upon to give a findin....
Conclusion [48] In conclusion, this Court find that this Application by the Plaintiff has no merits as it failed to fulfil the requirements under O 24 of ROC. Thus, I agree with D1's submission that encl 145 should be dismissed. ... [47] Due to this conclusion, this Court hereby deny and dismiss the discovery of the Letter to CJM. ... An assertion that the documents are relevant will not good enough. Equally, an assertion that the documents are necessary because they are relevant will not be enough....
I extract the relevant provisions. ' 227. ... ground for proceeding against him and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction. ... It is, thereafter, that the court concerned should reach to an appropriate conclusion, whether the case for discharge is made out or not. ... Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of the suspicion cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. ... Anil Bhunja & Ors., AIR 1980....
Once we come to the conclusion that the findings of fraud arrived at by the trial court and the first appellate court is based on the material on record and there is no infirmity in arriving at the said finding, the logical conclusion is that the High Court was in error in upsetting this finding while ... The said finding being a finding of fact and affirmed by the first Appellate Court, there is hardly any scope for this Court to interfere with the said findings. ... The situation, he....
And (2) the respondents had failed to show that the Director applied his mind and came to the conclusion that relevant or useful books existed and were likely to be withheld. ... 14. Mr. ... This section, therefore, is confined to finding out whether an alleged offender could have sufficient cause to believe and, therefore, could be said to have "reason to believe". ... ... If the conclusion is that a reasonable man acting bona fide could believe that the documents were useful or relevant, it will no....
Poshi Ram the Court came to the conclusion that the finding thus reached by the first appellate Court cannot be interfered with in a second appeal as no substantial question of law would have flowed out of such a finding. 53. In Thiagarajan v. Sri Venugopalaswamy B. ... The Court further held as under: (Bhagwan Sharma case, SCC p. 499, para 5) “5. … The grounds which may be available in support of a plea that the finding of fact by the Court below is vitiated in law, does not by itself lead to the further #HL_START....
It has deprecated the practice of the High Court routinely interfering in pure findings of fact reached by the courts below without coming to the conclusion that the said finding of fact is either perverse or not based on material on record. 13. In Ramanuja Naidu v. V. ... could not have reached such a finding, then, the High Court cannot be said to have erred. ... Both the courts, the trial court and the learned First Appellate Court, have examined the School Leaving Certificate and returned a finding that the date of ....
Suresh’s (PW 1) testimony that after receiving requisite permission from the authority the plaintiff had asked the defendant to execute the deed by way of serving notice and also the fact that he has placed on record cheque for Rs.3,90,000/, leads to the conclusion ... A decision based on no evidence, does not refer only to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding.”
It has deprecated the practice of the High Court routinely interfering in pure findings of fact reached by the courts below without coming to the conclusion that the said finding of fact is either perverse or not based on material on record. 13. In Ramanuja Naidu v. V. ... could not have reached such a finding, then, the High Court cannot be said to have erred. ... It was held that the High Court can interfere if the conclusion drawn by the lower court was erroneous being contrary to mandatory provisions of law applicab....
LPA allows the DB to make an order affirming or rejecting the finding of the DC. If the DB rejects the finding of the DC, the DB shall record the reason for the rejection. ... [33] The HCJ finally held that if the DB was not agreeable with the finding of the DC, what it should have done is to reject the finding and substitute it with its own. ... On 19 April 2019, the DB directed the DC to make a finding on the respondent's liability. ... They do not concern matters of a substantive nature, such as t....
The conclusion must be based on existent and relevant material. The factual findings of the disciplinary authority are not open to challenge and the power of judicial review does not extend to examining the correctness or truth of the charges. Courts will, however, interfere with the finding, if it is based on misreading of material evidence or is so unreasonable or grossly unjust that no reasonable person can judicially arrive at that conclusion. The evidentiary material must be such that it amounts to guilt of the employee in respect of the charge against her with some de....
On proper analysis and scrutiny of the judgments of this Court and other courts, we have come to the definite conclusion that there cannot be any comprehensive definition of the concept of “mental cruelty” within which all kinds of cases of mental cruelty can be covered. The analysis and ultimate conclusion are relevant which reads as under:- 10. In Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 = RLW 2007(2) SC 1357, a three-Judge Bench of this Court while considering Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act laid down certain guidelines.
4. 2007 under Section 17 (3) of the Act has concluded that for maintenance of public peace, revocation of the license of the petitioner was necessary. The Appellate Authority (respondent no. 2) has also upheld the order of the Licensing Authority (respondent no. 3 ). The conclusion is based on consideration of relevant circumstances. In the circumstances, no interference is called for with the impugned orders.
18. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the Licensing Authority (respondent No. 3) in passing the impugned order dated 10.4.2007 under Section 17(3) of the Act has concluded that for maintenance of public peace, revocation of the licence of the petitioner was necessary. The conclusion is based on consideration of relevant circumstances. The Appellate Authority (respondent No. 2) has also upheld the order of the Licensing Authority (respondent No. 3). In the circumstances, no interference is called for with the impugned orders.
Unless the State on examining the matter, had arrived at a conclusion that all things were equal. The third contention was that the nature of the work and duties were different. In our opinion the State Government ought to have considered these aspects and laid down criteria for merger of the two cadres and then fixing the inter se seniority in the merged cadres. These would be relevant aspects to be considered whilst arriving at a conclusion.
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
