Raising Admissibility Objections in Indian Courts: A Comprehensive Guide

2023 0 Supreme(All) 473

(ii) Whether on account of the failure of the appellant to object to admissibility of the said document at the time of its presentation before the learned court below precludes the appellants from raising such objections at a later stage ... Presumption of genuineness may be raised if the documents in question is produced from proper custody. It is, however, the discretion of the court to accept the presumption flowing from Section 90. ... Ordinarily an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it ....

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 74636

The petitioner opposed the petition on the grounds that the Sessions Case is still pending and that the certified copies in question are derived from unmarked Photostat documents which had not been admitted as exhibits. ... This Court, by a common order dated 27.08.2024, held that the Photostat copies of the documents in question were inadmissible in evidence, although permitted the trial court to recall PW-1 for marking the documents if the originals were produced and this decision attained finality. ... Consequently, the petitioner’s assertion that the ....

However, the view have formed as to the admissibility of the statement now in question under sections 18 and 21 renders unnecessary a definite expression of opinion as to the scope of illustration (m) to section 14. ... It is not therefore unreasonable to take the view on first impression that section 18 (read with section 21) formulates a rule of admissibility distinct from that set out in section 32. ... Accordingly, the most appropriate m e of examining counsel's contention is to consider whether the statement now in q....

2024 0 Supreme(MP) 492

The trial Court did not apply its mind to admissibility of the document dated 1.12.1997 before marking the same as an exhibit. Section 36 of the Stamp Act would hence not come into play at all and the plaintiff would not be precluded from raising objection as regards its admissibility. ... In the first case, acquiescence would be no bar to raising the objection in a superior Court." 9. ... Where a document has been inadvertently admitted without the Court applying its mind as to the question of its #HL_....

High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur

The Defendant contended that the documents contravened the provisions of admissibility under the and therefore were inadmissible.. ... In this case the issue is not on the non- availability of the witness but rather as to the admissibility of document. ... The Plaintiff's reliance on the Rules of 2012 is untenable as admissibility is governed under the Act. The Rules mere act as a guide to distinguish the various documents for ease of the proceedings. In no way the Rules displaces the Act on admissibility of documents.....

2024 Supreme(US)(ca10) 6

Harjo cannot make credibility a threshold admissibility problem because admissibility is tethered to relevance, while witness credibility is a jury question.14 See also Fed. R. Evid. 414(a) (“The evidence may be considered on any matter to which it is relevant.”) (emphasis added). ... Brackeen as “call[ing] into question” the notion that Congress’s authority could reach conduct limited to Indians on tribal land. ... The district court reserved ruling on the admissibility issue and agreed to hear further....

Allahabad

It is not a binding precedent at all on the principle about the effect of non-raising of the plea of admissibility of secondary evidence in the Court of first instance and the consequent bar of raising it for the first time in appeal before this Court. ... Sarfuddin, the point was neither raised nor considered, though involved, whether the failure to raise an objection before the Court of first instance about the admissibility of secondary evidence would disentitle the party from raising it and question....

Allahabad High Court

questioning its admissibility in appeal. ... The question of proof of a document is a question of and the consequent bar of raising it for the first time in appeal before this Court. ... Substantial Question of Law No. ... Substantial Question of Law No.

Now, in the case of every question put to, or answer given by, a witness, a question of law arises as to its relevancy and admissibility. ... The second question arising in these proceedings is as to the admissibility of certain portions of the evidence given by the witnesses Adonissa and Mohotti Banda, Ganarachchi. ... On the whole, I feel that if the evidence here in question had been objected to at the trial, and its admissibility had been argued before me a....

2022 0 Supreme(AP) 641

Laxminarayana and others, (2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases 618, wherein, on a specific question, whether admissibility of a document produced by the party would depend upon the recitals in the document or the plea of the adversary in the suit, it was categorically held that the recitals in the document alone ... Since the admissibility of a document marked on the ground of insufficiency of stamp duty cannot be received subsequently and demark a document in view of Section 36 of the Stamp Act, a party cannot be precluded from raising....

2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 1893

(a) The genealogies of the families concerned must fall within the four-corners of Section 32(5) or Section 13 of the Evidence Act. (b) They must not be hit by the doctrine of post litem motam. (2) On the question of admissibility the following tests must be adopted: (e) Litigations where such genealogies have been accepted or rejected.

2021 0 Supreme(All) 264

e. Litigations where such genealogies have been accepted or rejected. (2) On the question of admissibility the following tests must be adopted: a. The genealogies of the families concerned must fall within the four-corners of Section 32(5) or Section 13 of the Evidence Act. b. They must not be hit by the doctrine of post litem motam.

2018 0 Supreme(Mad) 877

(2) On the question of admissibility the following tests must be adopted: b. They must not be hit by the doctrine of post litem motam. a. The genealogies of the families concerned must fall within the four corners of Section 32(5) or Section 13 of the Evidence Act. e. Litigations where such genealogies have been accepted or rejected.

2017 0 Supreme(All) 1605

(2) On the question of admissibility the following tests must be adopted: (a) the genealogies of the families concerned must fall within the four corners of Section 32(5) or Section 13 of the Evidence Act. (b) They must not be hit by the doctrine of post item motam. (e) Litigations where such genealogies have been accepted or rejected.

Current Civil Cases

(e) Litigations where such genealogies have been accepted or rejected. (a) the genealogies of the families concerned must fall within the four corners of Section 32 (5) or Section 13 of the Evidence Act. (2) On the question of admissibility the following tests must be adopted: (b) They must not be hit by the doctrine of post litem motam.