List of Words Start with B in Indian Law Encyclopedia

List of law topics & legal articles

Indian Law Encyclopedia

B

BACKWARD CLASS
BAD CHARACTER
BAD DEBT
BAD FAITH
BADLI WORKMAN
BAIL
BAILMENT
BALANCE
BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE
BALANCE SALE CONSIDERATION
BALLISTIC EXPERT OPINION
BANK GUARANTEE
BANK LOAN
BANKRUPTCY
BANKER
BANKER BOOK OF EVIDENCE
BANKING DOCUMENTS
BAR COUNCIL
BAR OF ACQUIESCENCE
BAR OF JURISDICTION
BAR OF LIMITATION
BAR OF SUIT
BAR TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
BASIC FEATURE
BASIC PAY
BASIC RULE OF CONTRACT
BASIC WAGE
BATTERY
BEGER
BEING ILLEGAL
BENAMI TRANSACTION
BENEFICIAL PROVISION
BENEFICIARY
BENEFIT OF DOUBT
BENEFIT OF PART PERFORMANCE
BENGAL MONEY LENDERS ACT
BENGALI CALENDAR
BEQUEST
BEST EVIDENCE RULE
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
BIAS
BIGAMY
BILATERAL
BILL OF EXCHANGE
BILL OF LANDING
BILLS
BINDING NATURE
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
BIRTH AND DEATH
BIRTHRIGHT
BLACKMAIL
BLANK TRANSFER
BLENDING
BLOOD MARK
BLOOD TEST
BOARD
BODY CORPORATE
BODY OF CRIME
BONA VACANCIA
BONAFIDE CLAIM
BONAFIDE REQUIREMENT
BONDED LABOUR
BONDS
BONUS
BOUNDARIES OF STATE
BOVINE ANIMALS
BREACH
BREACH OF PEACE
BREVITY
BRIBERY
BRICKFIELD
BRIDE BURNING
BRITISH INDIA
BUDDHIST LAW OF GIFT
BUILDING
BUILDING BYE-LAWS
BULLION AND SPECIE
BURDEN
BURDEN OF PROOF
BURIAL GROUND
BUSINESS
BUSINESS EFFICIENCY
BUSINESS VENTURE
BUT NOT THEREAFTER
BUY BACK
BUYER AND SELLER
BY STANDARD

Reopening of Evidence by Civil Court-[Indian Law Encyclopedia]

Tanmoy
Supreme Court of India in K.K. Velusamy vs N. Palaanisamy, decided on 30 March, 2011, held:-

 

8. Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code enables the court, at any stage of a suit, to recall any witness who has been examined (subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force) and put such questions to him as it thinks fit. The power to recall any witness under Order 18 Rule 17 can be exercised by the court either on its own motion or on an application filed by any of the parties to the suit requesting the court to exercise the said power. The power is discretionary and should be used sparingly in appropriate cases to enable the court to clarify any doubts it may have in regard to the evidence led by the parties. The said power is not intended to be used to fill up omissions in the evidence of a witness who has already been examined. [Vide Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate- 2009 (4) SCC 410]. Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not a provision intended to enable the parties to recall any witnesses for their further examination-in- chief or cross-examination or to place additional material or evidence which could not be produced when the evidence was being recorded. Order 18 Rule 17 is primarily a provision enabling the court to clarify any issue or doubt, by recalling any witness either suo moto, or at the request of any party, so that the court itself can put questions and elicit answers. Once a witness is recalled for purposes of such clarification, it may, of course, permit the parties to assist it by putting some questions.

9. There is no specific provision in the Code enabling the parties to re- open the evidence for the purpose of further examination-in-chief or cross- examination. Section 151 of the Code provides that nothing in the Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Code to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court. In the absence of any provision providing for re-opening of evidence or recall of any witness for further examination or cross-examination, for purposes other than securing clarification required by the court, the inherent power under section 151 of the Code, subject to its limitations, can be invoked in appropriate cases to re- open the evidence and/or recall witnesses for further examination. This inherent power of the court is not affected by the express power conferred upon the court under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code to recall any witness to enable the court to put such question to elicit any clarifications.

Inherent Power of Civil Court-[Indian Law Encyclopedia]

Tanmoy

 

We may summarize them as follows:

(a) Section 151 is not a substantive provision which creates or confers any power or jurisdiction on courts. It merely recognizes the discretionary power inherent in every court as a necessary corollary for rendering justice in accordance with law, to do what is `right’ and undo what is `wrong’, that is, to do all things necessary to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of its process.

(b) As the provisions of the Code are not exhaustive, section 151 recognizes and confirms that if the Code does not expressly or impliedly cover any particular procedural aspect, the inherent power can be used to deal with such situation or aspect, if the ends of justice warrant it. The breadth of such power is co-extensive with the need to exercise such power on the facts and circumstances.

(c) A Court has no power to do that which is prohibited by law or the Code, by purported exercise of its inherent powers. If the Code contains provisions dealing with a particular topic or aspect, and such provisions either expressly or necessary implication exhaust the scope of the power of the court or the jurisdiction that may exercised in relation to that matter, the inherent power cannot be invoked in order to cut across the powers conferred by the Code or a manner inconsistent with such provisions. In other words the court cannot make use of the special provisions of Section 151 of the Code, where the remedy or procedure is provided in the Code.

(d) The inherent powers of the court being complementary to the powers specifically conferred, a court is free to exercise them for the purposes mentioned in Section 151 of the Code when the matter is not covered by any specific provision in the Code and the exercise of those powers would not in any way be in conflict with what has been expressly provided in the Code or be against the intention of the Legislature.

(e) While exercising the inherent power, the court will be doubly cautious, as there is no legislative guidance to deal with the procedural situation and the exercise of power depends upon the discretion and wisdom of the court, and the facts and circumstances of the case. The absence of an express provision in the code and the recognition and saving of the inherent power of a court, should not however be treated as a carte blanche to grant any relief.

(f) The power under section 151 will have to be used with circumspection and care, only where it is absolutely necessary, when there is no provision in the Code governing the matter, when the bona fides of the  applicant cannot be doubted, when such exercise is to meet the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of court.

Example of application: There is no specific provision in the Code enabling the parties to reopen the evidence for the purpose of further examination-in-chief or cross-examination. Section 151 of the Code provides that nothing in the Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Code to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court. In the absence of any provision providing for re-opening of evidence or recall of any witness for further examination or cross-examination, for purposes other than securing clarification required by the court, the inherent power under section 151 of the Code, subject to its limitations, can be invoked in appropriate cases to reopen the evidence and/or recall witnesses for further examination. This inherent power of the court is not affected by the express power conferred upon the court under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code to recall any witness to enable the court to put such question to elicit any clarifications.[K.K. Velusamy vs N. Palaanisamy, decided on 30 March, 2011]

Electronically recorded conversation-Admissibility [Indian Law Encyclopedia]

Tanmoy
Supreme Court of India in K.K. Velusamy vs N. Palaanisamy on 30 March, 2011 held : 

“The amended definition of “evidence” in section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872 read with the definition of “electronic record” in section 2(t) of the Information Technology Act 2000, includes a compact disc containing an electronic record of a conversation. Section 8 of Evidence Act provides that the conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit, in reference to such suit, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto. In R.M Malkani vs. State of Maharastra – AIR 1973 SC 157, this court made it clear that electronically recorded conversation is admissible in evidence, if the conversation is relevant to the matter in issue and the voice is identified and the accuracy of the recorded conversation is proved by eliminating the possibility of erasure, addition or manipulation. This Court further held that a contemporaneous electronic recording of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact comparable to a photograph of a relevant incident and is admissible as evidence under Section 8 of the Act. There is therefore no doubt that such electronic record can be received as evidence”.

Doctrine of Estoppels-Indian Law Encyclopedia

Tanmoy

Supreme Court in the case of Subhash Chandra vs. Mohammad Sharif & Ors. reported in AIR 1990 SC 636

“Doctrine of estoppels ordinarily applies where the tenant has been let into possession by the plaintiff. Where the landlord has not himself inducted the tenant in the disputed property and his rights are founded on a derivative title, for example, as an assignee, donee, vendee, heir, etc., the position is a little different. A tenant already in possession can challenge the plaintiffs claim of derivative title showing that the real owner is somebody else, but this is subject to the rule enunciated by Section 116 of the Evidence Act. The section does not permit the tenant, during the continuance of the tenancy, to deny that his landlord had at the beginning of the tenancy a title to the property. The rule is not confined in its application to cases where the original landlord brings an action for eviction. A transferee from such a landlord also can claim the benefit, but that will be limited to the question of the title of the original landlord at the time when the tenant was let in. So far claim of having derived a good title from the original landlord is concerned, the same does not come under the protection of the doctrine of estoppel, and is vulnerable to a challenge. The tenant is entitled to show that the plaintiff has not as a matter of fact secured a transfer from the original landlord or that the alleged transfer is ineffective for some other valid reason, which non-existent in the renders the transfer to be eye of law. By way of an illustration one may refer to a case where the original landlord had the right of possession and was, therefore, entitled to induct a tenant in the property but did not have any power of disposition. The tenant in such a case can attack the derivative title of the transferee-plaintiff but not on the ground that the transferor landlord who has initially inducted him in possession did not have the right to do so. Further since the impediment in the way of a tenant to challenge the right of the landlord is confined to the stage when the tenancy commenced, he is not forbidden to plead that subsequently the landlord lost this right. These exceptions, however, do not relieve the tenant of his duty to respect the title of the original landlord at the time of the beginning of the tenancy”.

ONUS OF EVIDENCE : In a case where the defendant in a suit for eviction denies the plaintiffs derivative title to the suit property, the onus is on the defendant to show that the plaintiff has not, in fact, derived any title in respect of the suit property from the original landlord.

List of Words Start with  A in Indian Law Encyclopedia

List of law topics & legal articles

Indian Law Encyclopedia

 

A

ABANDONMENT

ABATEMENT

ABDUCTION

ABOLITION

ABORTION

ABSCONDING AND PROCLAMATION

ABSENCE OF TITLE

ABSENTEES ACCESSION

ACCIDENT

ACCORD AND SATISFACTION

ACCOUNT

ACTION

ACCUSED PERSON

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

ACQUISITION AND REQUISITION

ACQUITTAL

ACT

ADJOURNMENT

ADMINISTRATION

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

ADMIRALTY

ADMISSION

ADOPTION OF CHILDREN

ADULT

ADULTERATION

ADULTERY

ADVERSE POSSESSION

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVOCATE

AFFIDAVIT

AFFRAY

AGE

AGENCY

AGREEMENT

AGRICULTURE

AIRCRAFT

ALIENS

ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS

AMBASSADORS

AMENDMENT

AMICUS CURIAS

ANIMAL RIGHTS

ANNUITIES

APPEAL

APPEARANCE

APPLICATION

APPOINTMENT

APPRECIATION

APPRENTICES

APPRENTICESHIP

APPROVER

ARBITRATION

ARCHITECTS

ARGUMENT

ARMS , AMMUNITION AND EXPLOSIVE

ARMY

ARREST AND DETENTION

ARSON

ASSAULT AND BATTERY

ASSIGNMENT

ASSIGNMENTS FOR BENEFIT OF CREDITORS

ASSOCIATION UNLAWFUL

ASSOCIATIONS ,SOCIETIES AND CLUB

ASYLUMS

ATROCITIES

ATTACHMENT

ATTESTATION

ATTORNEY AND CLIENT

ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ADVOCATE GENERAL

AUCTIONS AND AUCTIONEERS

AUDIT

AUTHORITY

AVIATION

AWARD