Impossibility Exception to the Section 65-B(4) Electronic Evidence Certificate
by Hasit B. Seth †
Cite as: 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 42
Evidence Act
[Will] HP HC | Where the document is written by one person and signed by another, the handwriting of the former and the signature of the later have both to be proved in view of S. 67 of the Evidence Act
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. dismissed the appeal being devoid of merits. The facts of the case are such
Madras HC | Daughters filed partition suit while disowning their registered release deed. As per S. 92 of Evidence Act, burden to adduce evidence sufficient to exclude written evidence will be on the daughters? Read on
Madras High Court: G. Jayachandran, J., the instant suit was filed with regard to the relief of partition and permanent injunction from
Ker HC | In divorce petition under S. 13(1)(iii) of HMA, can Court order a party to appear before medical board for assessment of mental condition? Court discusses
Kerala High Court: The Division Bench of A. Muhamed Mustaque and Kauser Edappagath, JJ., held that to get a decree of divorce
Changing Facades of Law on Admissibility of Electronic Evidence
by Vikas Upadhyay* & Prakash Upadhyay **
J&K HC | [S. 108 Evidence Act] A person whose whereabouts are unknown and who has not been heard of for more than 10 years, cannot be stated to have illegally run away from his service; Petition allowed
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Sanjay Dhar, J., while allowing the present petition, clarified that a person who has been declared missing
Patent and latent ambiguities, as explained by Supreme Court
Supreme Court: While settling the dispute between Anglo American Metallurgical Coal (AAMC) and MMTC Ltd, the bench of RF Nariman* and KM
J&K HC | Non-applicant cannot be convicted on the statement of co-accused recorded under S. 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985; Application dismissed
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: A Division Bench of Sanjay Dhar and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. while dismissing the present application seeking leave
Chh HC | Merely proving the signature of the attesting witness would not amount to the due compliance of S. 69 of the Evidence Act; S.90 of Evidence Act not to apply on wills
Chhattisgarh High Court: Sanjay K Agrawal J., dismissed the second appeal being devoid of merits. The facts of the case are such
[MV Act] Kar HC | MACT must proactively invoke power under S. 165 Evidence Act, in case of inability of claimants to produce treating doctors as witnesses
Karnataka High Court: H. T. Narendra Prasad J. allowed the appeal stating that the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal has ample powers under
Proving a contradiction during a Trial
by Jeet J Bhatt*
Execution of Will| Sufficient to prove attestation of one attesting witness to be in his handwriting when both attesting witnesses are dead
Supreme Court: Explaining the requirement under Section 69 of the Evidence Act pertinent to Section 68 of the Evidence Act that the
[S. 14 of Family Courts Act] Del HC | In a contest between right to privacy and right to fair trial, both of which arise under expansive Art. 21, right to privacy may have to yield to right to fair trial
Delhi High Court: Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J., while addressing a matrimonial dispute, observed that, “the only criterion or test under Section 14 of
Rethinking the ‘Fruits of the poisonous tree’ doctrine: Should the ‘ends’ justify the ‘means’?
by Bharat Chugh* & Taahaa Khan**
Practice and Procedure Relating to Proof of Documents
by Karl Shroff*
Sections 25 and 26 of Evidence Act must be strictly construed
Gauhati High Court: The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants in a criminal case for the offences punishable under Section 302
Suspicion however grave, cannot take the place of proof
Chhattisgarh High Court: In an appeal before the High Court, the appellants challenged their conviction by Sessions Judge in murder case of
Witnesses can be re-examined or re-called only when interest of justice is affected by not doing so
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Recently, an application was made under Section 482 CrPC against the order in which the plea of applicants
Presumption under Section 113-B of Evidence Act can be drawn only where ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are fulfilled
Delhi High Court: Acquitting the appellant of charges under Section 304-B read with 34 IPC, the Single Judge Bench of P.S. Teji,
Privilege communication between husband and wife is admissible in Family Court proceedings
Rajasthan High Court: While deciding a writ petition the Court has stated that Section 65 B of Evidence Act is not applicable