Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS MAHARASHTRA HYBRID SEEDS CO. PVT. LTD. ...
Checking relevance for Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta VS New Era Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. ...
Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta VS New Era Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. - 2015 0 Supreme(SC) 688 : The marking of a document as an exhibit does not constitute proof of its contents. Mere marking as an exhibit and identification of the executor’s signature by one witness is insufficient to prove the contents of a document. The admissibility of a document must be determined before it is marked as an exhibit, and objections to admissibility can be raised even after marking if the objection is based on the document itself being inadmissible, not merely on the mode of proof. If a document is marked as an exhibit subject to objection of proof and admissibility, it cannot be relied upon unless the party tendering it cures the defect by producing the original or certified copy. Failure to object at the appropriate time may result in waiver of the objection, but this does not apply if the objection is to the document''''s fundamental admissibility.Checking relevance for Korukonda Chalapathi Rao VS Korukonda Annapurna Sampath Kumar...
Korukonda Chalapathi Rao VS Korukonda Annapurna Sampath Kumar - 2021 6 Supreme 577 : Under Section 49(1)(c) of the Registration Act, 1908, an unregistered document cannot be used as evidence of a transaction that affects immovable property. However, a Khararunama, being a record of alleged past transactions relating to immovable property but not purporting to create, declare, assign, extinguish, or limit rights in such property, does not attract Section 49(1)(c). Therefore, it may be admitted in evidence, even if unregistered and unstamped, provided it is not used as evidence of the transaction itself but rather to show the nature of possession or as a record of past events. The cardinal principle is whether allowing the document in evidence would result in a breach of the mandate of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.Checking relevance for Maharashtra State Board Of Secondary And Higher Secondary Education: Alpana V. Mehta VS Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth: Maharashtra State Board Of Secondary Education...
Checking relevance for L. I. C. of India VS Ram Pal Singh...
L. I. C. of India VS Ram Pal Singh - 2010 2 Supreme 444 : Mere marking of a document as an exhibit does not amount to its proof under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 61. The admission of a document in evidence does not constitute proof of the document, and the party relying on it must still prove its authenticity and contents through proper evidence, such as oral testimony or documentary proof. Failure to prove marked exhibits results in the party being unable to draw any advantage from them.Checking relevance for A. C. Muthiah VS Board of Control for Cricket in India...
Checking relevance for IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS VS . ...
Checking relevance for Sharifa Dost Mohammed (Deleted) vs Ajit Developers Pvt. Ltd....
Sharifa Dost Mohammed (Deleted) vs Ajit Developers Pvt. Ltd. - 2025 0 Supreme(Bom) 474 : Under the Civil Manual, Chapter 27, paragraph 524 provides the procedure for marking documents in evidence. If a document is referred to in proceedings before being formally tendered, it should be immediately marked for identification. When tendered, it must be detached from the list. If admitted, the document should be assigned an exhibit number, endorsed as per Order XIII, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, and marked with ''''P'''' (for plaintiff) or ''''D'''' (for defendant). The number must also be endorsed on the list of documents. Additionally, paragraph 523(1) mandates that the Bench Clerk endorse on the back of each document the particulars mentioned in clauses (a), (b), and (c) of Rule 4(1), Order XIII, CPC. For documents of historical value, special care must be taken to avoid damage—such as using sealed covers or photographic copies—while ensuring identity is preserved for appeal or future proceedings.Checking relevance for Shree Shree Iswar Satyanarayanjee and Other deities, represented by its shebaits, Sri Lalit Kumar Bagla VS Partha Brothers...
Shree Shree Iswar Satyanarayanjee and Other deities, represented by its shebaits, Sri Lalit Kumar Bagla VS Partha Brothers - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1600 : The marking of a document as an exhibit is solely for identification purposes and does not affect the document''''s probative value. According to the Supreme Court in Sudir Engineering Company vs. Nitco Roadways Ltd., marking a document as an exhibit—whether by numbers or letters—is only to help the court and parties identify which document a witness is referring to during testimony. The absence of such marking does not invalidate the document''''s admissibility or probative force. Furthermore, a document can be admitted and relied upon even without formal marking, especially when it is properly sworn and unchallenged. The mere failure to mark documents as exhibits under Order XVIII, Rule 4(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, does not render a decree invalid if the substantive evidence is otherwise established and unchallenged.
![The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited VS The Deputy Commissioner of Labour [Appeals] - 2010 Supreme(Mad) 3128](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Madras_small_2.png)
