Drawing of adverse inference from non production of documents

http://www.supremelaw.in/2012/07/union-of-india-vs-ibrahim-uddin-anr.html

 

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1374 of 2008

 

Union of India v. Ibrahum uddin, July 17, 2012

 

ssue of drawing adverse inference is required to be decided by the court taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties and by deciding whether any document/evidence, withheld, has any relevance at all or omission of its production would directly establish the case of the other side. The court cannot loose sight of the fact that burden of proof is on the party which makes a factual averment. The court has to consider further as to whether the other side could file interrogatories or apply for inspection and production of the documents etc. as is required under Order XI CPC. Conduct and diligence of the other party is also of paramount importance. Presumption or adverse inference for non-production of evidence is always optional and a relevant factor to be considered in the background of facts involved in the case. Existence of some other circumstances may justify non-production of such documents on some reasonable grounds. In case one party has asked the court to direct the other side to produce the document and other side failed to comply with the court's order, the court may be justified in drawing the adverse inference. All the pros and cons must be examined before the adverse inference is drawn. Such presumption is permissible, if other larger evidence is shown to the contrary. 

Order obtained by fraud can be reviewed / recalled even absent any specific power

2012 (3) AWC 2930
Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of UP (CMWP 27152 of 2008) (Sunil Hali J)

Dominus litis

Nasiruddin versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal AIR 1976 SC 331

http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/660181/

Counsel in Review Petition must be the same as the one in the original petition

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr. v. N. Raju Reddiar & Anr., I (1997) CLT 338 (SC)=AIR 1997 SC 1005

In case a ground raised has not been considered by the court, review is the appropriate remedy.

In case a ground raised has not been considered by the court, review is the appropriate remedy.

 

Narmada Bachao Andolan V (2011) SLT 36

Order 7, Rule 11 - to be decided only on the basis of plaint

The law has been settled by this Court in various decisions that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to examine the averments in the plaint and the pleas taken by the defendants in its written statements would be irrelevant. [vide C. Natrajan vs. Ashim Bai and Another, (2007) 14 SCC 183, Ram Prakash Gupta vs. Rajiv Kumar Gupta and Others, (2007) 10 SCC 59, Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. vs. Hede and Company, (2007) 5 SCC614, Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. and Others vs. Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express and others, (2006) 3 SCC 100, Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Others vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 137, Saleem Bhai and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2003) 1 SCC 557]. The above view has been once again reiterated in the recent decision of this Court in The Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society, represented by its Chairman vs. M/s Ponniamman Educational Trust represented by its Chairperson / Managing Trustee, 2012 (6) JT 149.

Court will not give directions to fill vacancy or do regular selection

2012 (4) SCC 642

Exhaustion not to be insisted when matter pending for a long time

(2012) 4 SCC 786

Transfer at the behest of politicians

2008(5)ALT13(SC), [2007(115)FLR363], JT2007(12)SC467, 2008-1-LW79, (2008)1MLJ1044(SC), 2007(11)SCALE271, (2007)8SCC150, (2007)2SCC(L&S)806, [2007]10SCR72, 2008(1)SLJ430(SC), (2008)1UPLBEC523

 

There is nothing wrong as politicians are elected representation of the people and they have the prerogative to recommend transfers.

Ex parte report - Stamp Authority

2005 (98) RD 511), Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha vs. State of U.P. through Collector, Hamirpur & another and 2009 (27) LCD 442, Surendra Singh and another vs. State of U.P. & others. In para-13 of the judgment provides as under:-

"13. None of the authorities below besides the report of the Sub-Registrar has referred any other material in support of their orders. In Ram Khelawan @ Bachcha v. State of U.P. through Collector, Hamirpurt and another, 2005 (98) RD 511, it has been held that the report of the Tehsildar may be a relevant factor for initiation of the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act, but it cannot be relied upon to pass an order under the aforesaid section. In other words, the said report cannot form itself basis of the order passed under Section 47-A of the Act. In the case of Vijai Kumar v. Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, 2008 (7) ADJ 293 (para-17), the ambit and scope of Section 47-A of the Act has been considered with some depth. Taking into consideration the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kaka Singh v. Additional Collector and District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), 1986 ALJ 49; Kishore Chandra Agarwal v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (104) RD 253 and various other cases it has been held that under Section 47-A (3) of the Act, the burden lay upon the Collector to prove that the market value is more than minimum as prescribed by the Collector under the Rules. The report of the Sub-Registrar and Tehsildar itself is not sufficient to discharge that burden."   

 

 

See also: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1429837/