1. Pawan K. Aggarwal VS Sepset Properties Pvt. Ltd. - 17 Nov 21

Documentary Evidence – The onus of establishing that the Complainant was dealing in real estate i.e. in the purchase and sale of plots/ flats in his normal course of business to earn profits, shifts to the Opposite Party, which in the instant case the Opposite Party Developer had failed to discharge by filing any documentary evidence to establish their case.

be obtained in due course of time and the period prescribed for delivery of possession of the Unit booked would be dependent on ... then the Developer could have clarified this position to the prospective buyers, intimating them that the pending approvals etc. would ... Party, which in the instant case the Opposite Party Developer had failed to discharge by filing any documentary evidence to establish ... It is an associated company of Opposite Party No.2 but Opposite Party No.2 is not associated ... Direct the Opposite Party(s) to pay compensation of INR.

India - Consumer

2. Basiran Bibi VS Kureshan Bibi - 09 Sep 16

(1) Burden of proof lies on the party, whether plaintiff or defendant, who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue. Once that burden is discharged, the onus shifts to the other party. Evidence required to shift the burden need not necessarily be direct evidence, oral or documentary evidence or admissions made by opposite party; it may comprise circumstantial evidence or presumption of law or fact. Question of onus looses significance when both the parties have led and adduced evidence.(2) Concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court cannot be interfered unless perverse. (3) Objection as to jurisdiction of trial court taken for the first time before first Appellate court is not sustainable.

need not necessarily be direct evidence, oral or documentary evidence or admissions made by opposite party; it may comprise circumstantial ... affirmative of the issue – Once that burden is discharged, the onus shifts to the other party – Evidence required to shift the burden ... (c) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 21(1) – Objection as to jurisdiction of trial court taken for the first time ... evidence required to shift the burden need not necessarily be direct evidence i.e., oral or documentary evidence or admissions made by opposite ... to time having regard to the evidence adduced by one party or the other or the presumption of fact or law raised in favour of one ... In terms of Section 102 the initial onus is always o the plaintiff and if he discharges

India - Current Civil Cases

3. RAGHUBHAI NATHUBHAI KUMARKHANIYA VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 13 Sep 21

An advocate in the discharge of his duties to his client must not be hampered by any fear of offending the opposite party or any witness, and in the wake of such a duty it is further pointed out that questions will have to be asked which may not be fit for the drawing room or which may appear to be scandalous but "what is relevant cannot be scandalous".

As pointed out earlier, on different occasions the trial Judge has chosen to decide questions of admissibility of documents

India - Gujarat

4. Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association (Regd. ) VS State of Haryana - 11 Aug 17

Advocates—Professional Communications--Counsel engaged by a party is not liable to divulge any information given to him in confidence leave alone give documents that he has received, to opposite party—Such obligation continues even after the employment has ceased.

that he has received to opposite party--In terms of the explanation the obligation stated in the said section continues after the ... conduct is expected from a counsel and he is not liable to divulge any information given to him in confidence leave alone give documents ... (A) Advocates Act, 1961--Professional Communications--Advocate who was engaged as a counsel by a party in the litigation was/is ... Copy supplied to the opposite counsel. ... However, commenting on the conduct of the counsel in the discharge of his professional duty ... Vaneet Kumar Sharma, Advocate was requested to send the above documents to respondents No.5 and 6 as the same were the basis of his

India - Punjab

5. Harbans Singh VS Devi Lal Parikh - 29 Oct 14

Patient suffering from a disease since long and not on account of any treatment of opposite party, cannot claim deficiency in service on the part of doctors.

party No. 2 and was operated bycryosurgery—Even after discharge bleeding did not stop and he was told to continue medicine—Later ... 2(1)(g), 12, 15 and 21—Medical Negligence—The complainant suffering from piles and haemophilia, was admitted to the hospital of opposite ... that the opposite parties/petitioners were deficient and negligence in the treatment protocol—The revision petition allowed and ... 1/ opposite party no. ... 2/ opposite party no. ... At the time of discharge there was no bleeding in the piles of the respondent.

India - Consumer

6. Shreya Kumar VS Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. - 05 May 22

(i) the Opposite Party Developer shall complete the construction of allotted flats/Apartments in all respect within a period of six months from today and shall offer possession to the Complainants after obtaining the requisite Occupancy Certificate within the same period; (ii) the Opposite Party Developer shall pay delay compensation to the Complainants @9% p.a. from the committed date of delivery till the offer of possession after obtaining the Occupancy Certificate, within a period six months from the date of passing of this order; (iii) the Opposite Party shall calculate the amount payable by the Complainants at the time of taking the possession after adjustment of the delay compensation as directed above a copy of the same shall be supplied to the Complainants; (iv) the Opposite Party shall pay Rs.25,000/- to each of the Complainants towards costs of litigation.

reservation agitation”- Whether can be termed as Force Majeure – Non communication of to Complainant - In the present case also, the Opposite ... In the absence of any documents evidence, plea cannot be accepted - The other explanation to substantiate the plea of Force Majeure ... Since, the Complainants has failed to lead any documents in support of their contention regarding charges of Rs.2,00,000/-payable ... Party, which in the instant case they had failed to discharge by filing any documentary evidence to establish their case. ... In any case, no material has been placed by the opposite party on record to show that efforts ... be handed over within short span of time; (ix) the construction of the Project has been done by the Opposite Party Developer as

India - Consumer

7. Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. VS State of Rajasthan - 15 Feb 12

(1) When two companies amalgamate and merge into one the transferor company loses its entity as it ceases to have its business. However, their respective rights or liabilities are determined under the scheme of amalgamation but the corporate entity of the transferor company ceases to exist with effect from the date the amalgamation is made effective.(2) If the material or the relevant evidence is withheld by a party, then the presumption raised against the opposite party stands rebutted.

Although the accused-respondent did not examine any witness, but he did submit four documents

India - Dishonour Of Cheque

8. Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. VS State of Rajasthan - 15 Feb 12

(1) When two companies amalgamate and merge into one the transferor company loses its entity as it ceases to have its business. However, their respective rights or liabilities are determined under the scheme of amalgamation but the corporate entity of the transferor company ceases to exist with effect from the date the amalgamation is made effective.(2) If the material or the relevant evidence is withheld by a party, then the presumption raised against the opposite party stands rebutted.

Although the accused-respondent did not examine any witness, but he did submit four documents

India - Crimes

9. G. Ommen, Proprietor, St. Mary’s Cashew Factory VS Chairman & Managing Director, National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 17 Sep 07

(1) Surveyor’s report in Insurance claim is an important document and same could not be rejected without assigning sufficient reasons.(2) Mere execution of discharge voucher would not always deprive insured-consumer from preferring claim with respect to deficiency in service or consequential benefits arising out of amount paid in default of service rendered.

same could not be rejected without assigning sufficient reason—Assessment of inherent vice of Cargo was based on an assumption—Opposite ... party acted in arbitrary manner—Acceptance of Rs. 2,01,426 could not be treated as full and final settlement of claims—Conduct of ... amount—Insurance company paid the amount of Rs. 2,01,426—Complaint claiming balance amount of Rs. 2,63,907—Surveyor’s report was an important document ... D 1 and D2 documents were also marked on the side of the opposite parties. ... Ajme Singh Cotton and General Mills and Ors.4 has held that mere execution of discharge voucher would not always deprive the consumer ... Port and the moisture percentage of the Cargo at the discharge Port.

India - Consumer

10. Rasheed Ahmad Usmani VS DLF Ltd. (through its Chairman & MD) DLF Centre - 02 Jul 19

1. It is also the settled proposition of law that the facts which can be proved by documents, no oral testimony is needed. 2. A person cannot depose on behalf of another person without being so authorized. 3. The existence of element of coercion being used upon each and every of such complainants who have taken possession and executed conveyance deed, cannot be presumed.4. Since conveyance deed is not a service contract the forceful execution of this document cannot be challenged under the Consumer Protection Act. 5. The burden therefore is upon such person i.e. the complainants to prove such facts by leading evidences which show that the consent given by such person while entering into a settlement, was not free. 6. Consumer should have an existing right under the service contract to claim deficiency in service. 7. It is for the complainants to prove that the contractual terms of agreement are unfair and unreasonable.

not been adopted—Complainants have therefore acted on their own free will and it cannot be said that they had not signed these documents ... complainant has been filed to prove their individual grievances—In the present complaint, the contentions of the parties are based on the documents ... tax had also increased to 12.3% and 14.5% and thus the buyers had to pay higher service tax—Opposite parties have also failed to ... from opposite party No.2. ... These documents also show that these 11 complainants have sold the property not in loss ... These documents also show that these 11 complainants have sold the property not in loss

India - Consumer