introduction to Indian Contract Act 1872 for B.com students.
The paper is an in depth study of the concept of Res gestate and its applicability in the Indian Evidence Act in consideration with different judicial interpretations.
study notes for B.com studentsFull description
Evidence act
a commentary on section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act...........Full description
Full description
Evidence of good character of accused. It contains EXPLANATION TO –SECTION 55, SCOPE AND VALUE OF CHARACTER EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASE: SECTION-52, SCOPE AND VALUE OF GOOD CHARACTER IN CRIMINAL CASES...
project
Law Commission Report IndiaFull description
a full brief of 246th report of law commission of india
Full description
contract act 1872 pakistan.docFull description
All About Documentary Evidence Under Indian Evidence Act, 1872 By Namita SirsiyaFull description
pakistani contract act 1872Full description
Full description
CREDIT TRANSACTION
Project on expert opinion under Indian Evidence lawFull description
This document is a comprehensive compilation of the entire law. Suitable for lawyers, law students ,civil aspirants, and anybody who would like to study the subject in greater depth. I also …Full description
This document is a comprehensive compilation of the entire law. Suitable for lawyers, law students ,civil aspirants, and anybody who would like to study the subject in greater depth. I also …Full description
This material is for PGPSE / CSE students of AFTERSCHOOOL. PGPSE / CSE are free online programme - open for all - free for all - to promote entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurshipFull description
evidence act with case law-notes
LatestLaws.com 278
Ramanathan, AIR 1942 Mad 384; Kamakshya vs. Baldeo, AIR 1950 Pat 97 (FB).
The opposite view is contained in Krishna Das vs. Vithoba, AIR 1939 Bom 66.
We do not think that it is necessary to have have a separate provision provision
merely because of the contrary view in Krishna Das vs. Vithoba, AIR 1939 Bom 66 and two other Bombay cases.
th
The 69 Report referred to the following observations of the Privy Council in Talluri Venkata Seshayya vs. Tadikonda Kotiswararao (1936) 64 IA 17, referring to Judgments which held ‘gross negligence’ was always a ground (whether involving minors or not):
“Their Lordships are not concerned to discuss the validity of these decisions, or the elusive distinction between negligence and gross negligence, as they are satisfied that the principle involved in these cases is not applicable applicable to such cases as the present present one. one.
The
protection of minors against the negligent actions of their guardians is a special one.”
The Privy Council case was one where negligence was not equated with fraud (see para 16.119) but there are clear observations in that case that negligence of guardians guardians is a special case. Then the Privy Council Council dissented from Karri Bapanna vs. Sunkari, 45 MLJ 324 in equating gross negligence of guardians with fraud.
