Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for STATE OF U. P. VS SUDHIR KUMAR SINGH...
2020 6 Supreme 708 : Where there is no dispute as to the facts, or the weight to be attached to disputed facts but only an explanation of the acts, absence of opportunity to cross-examination does not create any prejudice in such cases. This is more so when the party against whom an order has been passed does not dispute the facts and does not demand to test the veracity of the version or the credibility of the statement. The party who does not want to controvert the veracity of the evidence from record or testimony gathered behind his back cannot expect to succeed in any subsequent demand that there was no opportunity of cross-examination, especially when it was not asked for and there was no dispute about the veracity of the statements.Checking relevance for Arvind Singh VS State of Maharashtra...
2020 8 Supreme 302 : When a fact is not challenged in cross-examination, the court may presume that the witness''''s account has been accepted. This principle is grounded in the rule that the party is obliged to put its version in cross-examination of the opposite party''''s witnesses. If no such questions are put during cross-examination, the court would presume that the witness''''s account has been accepted. This applies both in civil and criminal trials, and the system of justice assumes that when witnesses are not tested through cross-examination, their evidence is ordinarily accepted. In particular, matters sworn to in pleadings that are not challenged either in pleadings or through cross-examination must be accepted as fully established.Checking relevance for Competition Commission of India VS Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd. ...
2025 0 Supreme(SC) 810 : The legal document states that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) relied on uncorroborated testimony from converters who were ''''openly conflicted and inimically disposed'''' to Schott India, and that the CCI did not allow cross-examination of these witnesses. The court found that the CCI''''s refusal to grant cross-examination was a violation of natural justice, and that cross-examination would have revealed inconsistencies, such as converters expanding output and raising prices independently of Schott India, and sourcing tubes from imports—facts inconsistent with the claim of market foreclosure. The document also notes that the CCI ''''cherry-picked'''' only inculpatory passages from the statements while ignoring exculpatory ones, such as the reply of Lisa Ampoules (DG Report, Reply to Question 11, Page 902). These unchallenged facts, based on untested oral evidence, formed the foundation of the CCI’s adverse findings.Checking relevance for Sat Paul VS Delhi Administration...
Checking relevance for Anees VS State Govt. Of NCT...
Checking relevance for State of Orissa VS Prasamma Kumar Mohanty...
2009 0 Supreme(SC) 668 : In the case where the investigating officer (P.W.9) was not cross-examined due to his ill-health and loss of memory, the court held that Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was not applicable because the defence had been given ample opportunity to cross-examine him, but failed to do so despite the witness being recalled and available. The court further noted that the veracity of the witness''''s evidence in chief would be assessed with reference to other materials on record during final argument, as cross-examination could not be conducted due to the witness''''s incapacity. This implies that facts not challenged in cross-examination—particularly when the witness is unable to testify—may still be considered, but their reliability is subject to evaluation based on other evidence in the record.Checking relevance for Chanan Singh Son Of Kartar Singh VS State Of Haryana...
Checking relevance for Sonu Kumar VS State of H. P. ...
2023 0 Supreme(HP) 484 : When a party does not challenge the factum of execution of a document in cross-examination, and the witness is not cross-examined regarding specific details such as attestation, the court may presume that the witness''''s testimony is accepted. This principle applies particularly when the opposing party fails to put their version to the witness during cross-examination, leading to the inference that the witness''''s account has not been disputed. The court may accept the testimony as fully established, especially if the matter was not challenged in pleadings or cross-examination. This is based on the rule that cross-examination is a matter of substance, not merely procedure, and that a party is obliged to put their case in cross-examination of the opposite party''''s witnesses. The failure to cross-examine results in the presumption that the witness''''s evidence is accepted.
