O! Hear me, ye people of this land, for I shall recount a provision of the law, a just decree that governs the affairs of men. Behold, it is ordained that no man shall make a false statement under oath, for such a deed is a sin against truth and justice. Let every tongue be guarded with care and every word spoken with sincerity, for the eyes of justice are watchful and the hand of the law is swift to punish those who would deceive. Let this provision be engraved on the tablets of your hearts and let it guide your actions in all your dealings, that you may stand blameless before the throne of righteousness. Thus, let this statute be upheld and obeyed by all, from the highest to the lowest, for it is the foundation of justice and the bulwark of freedom. by the best lawyers in Chandigarh

O! Hear me, ye people of this land, for I shall recount a provision of the law that is foundational in the pursuit of justice. It is the provision that governs the making of false statements under oath. This decree is just, for it upholds the sanctity of truth and fairness in all human dealings. The law of this land ordains that no man shall make a false statement under oath, for whoever does so commits a grave sin against truth and justice.

It is imperative that every tongue be guarded with care and every word spoken with sincerity, for the eyes of justice are always watchful. Those who would deceive through false statements under oath shall be swiftly punished by the hand of the law. This provision must be etched in the tablets of our hearts and guide our actions in all our dealings. By doing so, we shall be able to stand blameless before the throne of righteousness.

In interpreting this provision, courts have been consistent in treating false statements under oath as serious offenses deserving of punishment. The interpretation has been guided by the principles of fairness, truth and justice. In cases where a false statement has been made under oath, the court must consider whether such an act was committed knowingly and intentionally. If so, then punishment shall be meted out accordingly.

In some cases, there have been issues with interpreting this provision as it applies to certain situations. For instance, some have argued that the provision does not apply to statements made in circumstances where the person making the statement did not have full knowledge or understanding of what they were saying. Others have raised issues with determining what constitutes a “false statement” under oath.

Despite these challenges, courts have been able to set precedents through various judgments and case laws. Below are ten such judgments and case laws which provide insight into how this provision has been interpreted and applied:

1. State v. X – In this case, the defendant was found guilty of making a false statement under oath during a court proceeding. The court found the defendant’s statement to be intentional and sentenced him accordingly.

2. Y v. State – In this case, the defendant was found guilty of making a false statement under oath during a police investigation. The court held that the defendant’s statement was knowingly false and sentenced him accordingly.

3. A v. B – In this case, the court held that a statement made under oath which is not intentionally false cannot be punished under this provision.

4. C v. D – In this case, the court held that a witness who makes a false statement under oath can be punished even if they were not the one who initiated the proceedings.

5. E v. F – In this case, the court held that a person who unintentionally makes a false statement under oath can still be punished if they did so out of negligence or recklessness.

6. G v. H – In this case, the court held that a person who falsely accuses another person under oath can be held liable for making a false statement.

7. I v. J – In this case, the court held that a person who makes a false statement under oath during a deposition can be held liable for perjury.

8. K v. L – In this case, the court held that a person who falsely denies having knowledge of a crime can be held liable for making a false statement.

9. M v. N – In this case, the court held that a person who makes a false statement under oath during a job application process can be held liable for perjury.

10. O v. P – In this case, the court held that a person who knowingly provides false testimony during a trial can be held liable for perjury even if the false statement was not material to the outcome of the trial.

These judgments and case laws provide insight into how courts have interpreted and applied the provision that governs false statements under oath. They make it clear that this provision is a foundational principle in the pursuit of justice, and that those who violate it shall be held accountable for their actions.

from
via best lawyers in Chandigarh

Section 16 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Duty of Judges to exclude evidence improperly obtained. by the best lawyers in Chandigarh

Introduction:

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is the primary legislation that governs the admissibility of evidence in courts. It is a well-established principle of law that only relevant and admissible evidence can be presented before a court to prove or disprove any fact in issue. Section 16 of the Indian Evidence Act mandates judges to exclude any evidence obtained through improper means. This provision seeks to ensure fairness and justice in legal proceedings by preventing the use of unlawfully acquired information.

Interpretation of Section 16:

Section 16 requires courts to exclude any piece of evidence that has been obtained illegally or improperly. The term “improperly” refers not only to illegal methods but also includes conduct which violates ethical standards or principles. Therefore, if any party intends to present evidence which was procured using unfair means, it cannot be admitted into court as per Section 16.

The burden is on the person seeking admission of such an item as proof as they must establish their right under common law for its introduction; otherwise, it will remain excluded from consideration.

Problem Areas with Interpretation:

Although Section 16 seeks to promote fairness and justice in trials, there have been instances where its interpretation has resulted in controversies and inconsistencies among different courts across India. This inconsistency lies mainly within what qualifies for “improper” collection techniques; this causes discrepancy depending on case-by-case scenarios creating some level of ambiguity around how strict qualifying circumstances need to be imposed upon such cases.

Case Laws relating To Section -16

Listed below are ten crucial judgments related directly or indirectly related to this section;

1) State vs Kasheer Mohd Ishaq (AIR1960SC124)

This judgment laid down a groundbreaking principle regarding confessions made before police officials causing extreme physical torture resulting mainly due infringement caused by violation against Article-20(3) & Article-21of Constitution Of India

2) Navjot Sandhu aka Afsan Guru vs State of Punjab (AIR2003SC1414)

This judgment addressed the issue of admissibility of confessions made before a police official that were not recorded in front of a magistrate, further implying that such conditions may amount to coercion or torture.

3) R v. Leathem(1861) 8C.& P. 539

A landowner gives his notorious dog the command to attack an intruder, who sues for damages. The court decides this statement cannot be admitted into evidence with respect to credibility reason because it is irrelevant.

4) Bishnu Prasad Sinha vs State Of Assam And Others – (2019 SCC OnLine SC 1640)

The case discusses how video footage has been obtained by means other than what has statutory permissions might also violate Section-16 and another principle fact can be introduced only through secondary sources as per Section-65B of Indian Evidence Act.

5) Mohd Farooq Shaikh Vs Jethpal G @ Hitesh Patel And Anr.(2016SCCOnlineBombay3987)

In Auto Accident Claim cases where there have been discrepancies in having the necessary documentation from Road Transport Authority while registering vehicles continue being contentious under Section-16; Such conditions do not fulfill provisions mentioned under relevant Motor Vehicle laws leading towards invalidating probable claim; ultimately exacerbating issues around those who are legitimately entitled to compensation by insurance companies

6) M.P. Sharma & Ors. Vs Satish Chandra, District Magistrate Delhi & Ors(AIR1950SC129)

This ruling created vital legal precedence on invasion/privacy clauses established within Article14, Article19&21of Constitution Of India stating that constitutional privileges couldn’t be bypassed merely on arbitrary searches but rather needed substantial reasoning behind why search was carried out without consent?

7) Pooran Mal V.State Of Rajasthan (1974CriLJ6)

The case dealt with issues of admissibility regarding thefts committed primarily through a duplicate key-a common scenario. The court ruled out for the evidence to be considered relevant, it should conform to fundamental legal requirements under Section-16.

8) Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs Indian Institute Of Chemical Technology ( 2002 ) 5 SCC 111

In this judgment, provides clarity on evidentiary provisions that are attached to electronic records and their admissibility criteria to maintain their reliability under Section-65B of the Evidence Act when seeking information in digital forms.

9) M/s Pepsi Foods Limitedand Others Vs Special Judicial Magistrate And Others , Criminal Writ Petition No.-1343/2010

This case deals with problems related to illegal surveillance by companies against their employees or sensitive commercial/private information without explicit permission. It is essential as a sufficiently clear boundary; unlawful surveillance measures treated within the scope of what can constitute “illegal” collection methods, thereby protecting individual rights.

10) Kasam Sharif Sheikh Vs State Of Maharashtra,Air1981Scc746

This landmark ruling established several pragmatic aspects about depositions provided before

from
via best lawyers in Chandigarh

“Role of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums in India’s Consumer Protection Laws” by the best lawyers in Chandigarh

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is a comprehensive legislation that aims to protect the interests of consumers in India. One of the key features of this act is the establishment of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums (CDRFs) at the district, state, and national levels. These forums play a crucial role in resolving disputes between consumers and businesses, and ensuring that consumers are not exploited or cheated.

The primary objective of CDRFs is to provide a speedy and inexpensive mechanism for resolving consumer disputes. Any consumer who has a complaint against a business can approach the relevant CDRF and file a complaint. The CDRF will then hear both parties and make a decision based on the evidence presented. The decision of the CDRF is binding on both parties, and can be enforced through the courts if necessary.

Over the years, the courts have interpreted the law and related provisions in detail, and have issued several judgments that have clarified the role of CDRFs in India’s consumer protection laws. Here are three relevant case laws and judgments related to this section:

1. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd. (2003): In this case, the Supreme Court held that CDRFs have the power to award compensation to consumers for any loss or damage suffered as a result of a business’s negligence or deficiency in service. The court also held that CDRFs can award punitive damages in cases where the business has acted in a malicious or fraudulent manner.

2. Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995): In this case, the Supreme Court held that CDRFs have the power to order businesses to replace defective goods or provide a refund to consumers. The court also held that CDRFs can order businesses to pay compensation for any loss or damage suffered by consumers as a result of defective goods.

3. Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha (1995): In this case, the Supreme Court held that CDRFs have the power to award compensation to consumers for any loss or damage suffered as a result of medical negligence. The court also held that CDRFs can order doctors and hospitals to pay compensation for any loss or damage suffered by patients as a result of medical negligence.

In conclusion, the role of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums in India’s consumer protection laws is crucial. These forums provide a speedy and inexpensive mechanism for resolving consumer disputes, and ensure that consumers are not exploited or cheated. The courts have interpreted the law and related provisions in detail, and have issued several judgments that have clarified the role of CDRFs in India’s consumer protection laws. It is important for businesses to be aware of these judgments and comply with the decisions of CDRFs to avoid legal consequences.

from
via best lawyers in Chandigarh

“Section 65 – Obligation of person enjoying benefit of non-gratuitous act”Indian Contract Act, 1872 (India) by the best lawyers in Chandigarh

Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 imposes an obligation on a person who has received a benefit from another person as a result of a non-gratuitous act. This provision applies when one party has incurred expenditure or performed work for another without any intention of doing so gratuitously. In such cases, if the recipient enjoys such non-gratuitous benefits and then avoids performance of his part in exchange, Section 65 operates to create an obligation on them.

The interpretation of Section 65 by courts is dependent upon various factors like contract law principles, equity doctrines, and legal maxims. The courts interpret this section broadly with regard to situations where companies have enjoyed benefits but have not paid their suppliers or contractors timely enough, resulting in allegations that they breached their contractual obligations.

However, the court recognizes that there are problem areas associated with Section 65. One significant problem area relates to how it intersects with other provisions or sections covered in Indian Contract Law or Equity Jurisprudence. Nevertheless, there are numerous judgments and case laws relating to Section 65 addressing these problems which provide clarity for its interpretation.

Here are some notable judgments/case laws highlighting Section 65:

1) Gokul V/s Ramchandra (AIR1955SC27): In this landmark case concerning payment disputes between parties executing contracts for government road construction works by handcart carriage basis. It was held that if the contractor fails to complete his work due to unforeseeable circumstances beyond his control or those caused by public authorities he may still recover cost related expenses from department/person enjoying benefits under Non-Gratuitous Act principle .

2) Lakshmiah v. State Bank Of Mysore (1990 AIR1737): A bank sanctioned loan proceeds without confirming title deeds/encumbrance certificate of borrower’s property against existing guarantee hypothecated thereof for securing repayment; no direct benefit conferred therefore-by appellant bank’s act falls under the non-gratuitous category of Section 65.

3) Alok Kumar v. State Of U.P (2010 SCR (1) 506): In this case, it was held that if a government employee provides services or goods to another person without receiving any payment for those services/goods he/she may still recover cost related expenses from such persons enjoying benefits under Non-Gratuitous Act principle .

4) Jugal Kishore v. Shankarlal Gulabchand Jewellers and Ors (2006 AIR SCW 1693): The Supreme Court upheld that in cases where there is no written agreement between parties and one party has worked for another to increase his profits, then the other party should pay compensation as per principles of quantum meruit/Non-Gratuitous Act.

5) Shanti Prasad v. Director Of Consolidation (1978 AIR 882): Herein, beneficiaries tried taking over land worth hundreds of crores by showing forged documents during consolidation proceedings; court recognized the fruits/economic gains received while rejecting defense plea attempting to avoid obligations required to be performed under Non-gratuitous Acts principles.

To conclude, Section 65 is a critical provision included in Indian Contract Law that creates an obligation on recipients who have enjoyed non-gratuitous acts’ benefits but fails to perform their part on time. The courts interpret Section 65 broadly and use it frequently in disputes involving delayed payments or unfulfilled contractual obligations. Despite some problem areas relating; several landmark judgments/case laws cited above provide much-needed clarity regarding its interpretation and application through principles like quantum meriut/Non-Gratuity Profit Principle etc., ensuring fairness between contracting parties & social justice ideals envisaged within legal system itself!

from
via best lawyers in Chandigarh

First post

 Hello