Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Cosmosteels Pvt. Ltd. VS Supermax International Pvt. Ltd. ...
Checking relevance for Coromandel International Ltd. VS M. V. GLORY I...
Coromandel International Ltd. VS M. V. GLORY I - 2014 0 Supreme(Bom) 1822 : Under Order VII, Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, a plaintiff is required to produce documents in their possession or power when filing the plaint. However, if a document is not in the plaintiff''''s possession, the plaintiff must state, where possible, in whose possession or power the document is. The rule does not require the plaintiff to produce original documents if they are not in their possession, but rather obligates them to disclose the location of the document. This is consistent with the principle that the plaintiff is not compelled to produce original documents if they are not in their possession, provided they have disclosed the whereabouts of the document.Checking relevance for Manguesh Rajaram Wagle VS Suresh D. Naik Major...
Checking relevance for Sharifa Dost Mohammed (Deleted) vs Ajit Developers Pvt. Ltd....
Checking relevance for MEERA w/o VIJAY MUKHEDKAR VS LAXMINARAYAN s/o VENKOBASA DAMAM (died)...
Checking relevance for Menino Fernandes VS Dipika Solanki...
Menino Fernandes VS Dipika Solanki - 2008 0 Supreme(Bom) 1509 : The court held that a plaintiff cannot be compelled to produce original documents if they are not in his possession, particularly when the originals are in the possession of a third party (such as a spouse) with whom the plaintiff has strained relations. The court allowed the plaintiff to lead secondary evidence of documents (like a leave and license agreement and reply notice) because the originals were in the wife''''s possession and the plaintiff could not obtain them due to the strained relationship. This reasoning supports the principle that a party is not required to produce original documents if they are not in their possession, especially when the inability to produce them is due to circumstances beyond their control.Checking relevance for Dharmil A. Bodani of Mumbai VS Manju Meadows Pvt. Ltd. ...
Checking relevance for Vijay VS Union of India...
Vijay VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 1179 : Under Section 65(a) of the Evidence Act, 1872, secondary evidence of a document may be admitted if the original is in the possession or power of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of or not subject to the process of the court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and such person does not produce it after notice. This means that a plaintiff cannot be compelled to produce an original document if it is not in their possession, especially when the document is in the possession of the defendant or their counsel, and the defendant fails to produce it despite notice. The court may allow secondary evidence in such circumstances, as seen in the case where the defendant stated the original was with her counsel but could not be recovered, and the plaintiff was allowed to present secondary evidence.Checking relevance for Prince Marine Transport Services Private Limited VS State of Maharashtra...
Checking relevance for Mohammed Abdul Wahid VS Nilofer...
Checking relevance for Bagai Construction Thr. Its Proprietor Lalit Bagai VS Gupta Building Material Store...
Checking relevance for Shyam Gopal Bindal VS Land Acquisition Officer...
Checking relevance for Sugandhi (dead) by Lrs. VS P. Rajkumar rep. By His Power Agent Imam Oli...
Checking relevance for ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL...
Checking relevance for Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy VS Billa Sanjeeva Reddy...
Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy VS Billa Sanjeeva Reddy - 1994 0 Supreme(SC) 142 : The court held that if documents are not in a party''''s possession or custody, they shall be filed by the party along with an application to condone delay in filing them. The party is not required to produce original documents if they are not in their possession, as certified copies obtained from revenue authorities may be submitted. This principle applies even when there is a delay in production, especially if the documents are relevant to the real issue in controversy and the interest of justice requires their consideration.Checking relevance for State Of Gujarat VS Mahendrakumar Parshottambhai Desai (Dead) by L. Rs. ...
Checking relevance for Lakhi Baruah VS Padma Kanta Kalita...
