The Supreme Court held that merely because either of the parties have disputed a factum of paternity, it does not mean that the Court should direct DNA test or such other test to resolve the controversy. Only in exceptional and deserving cases, where such a test becomes indispensable to resolve the controversy the Court can direct such test.
In the instant matter the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had to determine whether the complainant's JCB machine had fallen down or overturned for the purposes of an insurance claim
The finding of guilt cannot be based purely on the refusal of the accused to undergo an identification parade.
Punjab and Haryana High Court: On failure of the plaintiff to appear in the witness box and produce the record, a Single
Tripura High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Ajay Rastogi, CJ, dismissed a revision petition filed against the order of the
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Dipak Misra, Amitava Roy and AM Khanwilkar, JJ held that a public servant facing charge of
Supreme Court: The Bench of P.C. Ghose and R.F. Nariman, JJ held that any person can be directed to give his finger
Himachal Pradesh High Court: In an appeal concerning ownership of land by a sale deed, T.S. Chauhan, J, relying on previous judgments