Last seen theory

Criminal Trial — Circumstantial evidence — Last seen together — Theory of: “Last seen theory” is important link in chain of circumstances that would point towards guilt of accused with some certainty. Such theory permits court to shift burden of proof to accused and he must then offer a reasonable explanation as to cause of death of deceased. But, it is not prudent to base conviction solely on “last seen theory”. Such theory should be applied, taking into consideration case of prosecution in its entirety and keeping in mind circumstances that precede and follow the point of being so last seen. Where time gap is long, it would be unsafe to base conviction on “last seen theory”. It is safer to look for corroboration from other circumstances and evidence adduced by prosecution. [Nizam v. State of Rajasthan,(2016) 1 SCC 550]

Recall of Order - Advocate's name not shown in Cause List

Lajwanti v. Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC 345 at page 34

The name of the appellant's advocate not having been shown in the cause-list is a sufficient cause for recalling the order

Replication and stages of pleadings in a civil suit

1.    Delhi: Anant Construction v. Ram Niwas, 1994 (31) DRJ 205 : on replication. Holds that once Court allows replication, it becomes part of the pleading. We have been allowed so by 29.10.2014 order.

2.    Bombay: Mohanraj v. Kewalchand, 2007 (1) Mh LJ 691, para 8: document even if not entered in list of reliance cannot be ignored unless the otherside establishes prejudice.

3.    Delhi: Moti Ram v. Baldev Krishan , 15 (1979) DLT 90, pg 92: Replication is permitted by court forms part of the pleading.

4.    Punjab: Sharda Rani v. Malik Yashpal, (1964) 66 PLR 1126, para 7: when document is referred to and relied upon in the pleadings the contents thereof can be construed as part of pleading.

 

 

Withdrawal without Liberty

Mario Shaw v. Martin Fernandez, 1995 SCC OnLine Bom 313: (1996) 1 Mh LJ 564

 

Or 23, R. 1(4) – Withdrawal of dispute with liberty to file fresh proceedings – if application is made for withdrawal of proceedings with liberty to file fresh proceedings, it is not open for the Court to grant permission only for withdrawal without liberty to institute proceedings though it is open for the Court to reject such application.

 

 

Absence of Co-Owner doesnt prejudice the case of other co-owners to sue

In Smt. Kanta Goel v. B.P Pathak, AIR 1977 SC 1599 their Lordships, whilst reiterating the view in Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath, AIR 1976 SC 2335, observed that the law had been put beyond all doubt that the absence of one of the other co-owners on the record does not in the least disentitle the plaintiff co-owner from suing and succeeding in the proceeding for the eviction of a tenant. 

Inherent jurisdiction and Or 39

Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal [AIR 1962 SC 527] held that the civil court has a power to grant interim injunction in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction even if the case does not fall within the ambit of provisions of Order 39, Code of Civil Procedure.

Inherent Right of Procedural Review

AIR 1999 Cal 29  Ratanlal Nahata v. Nandita Bose

Every court has inherent right of procedural review, for substantive review power is required