{"id":316599,"date":"2024-03-10T11:00:59","date_gmt":"2024-03-10T05:30:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=316599"},"modified":"2024-03-10T15:23:03","modified_gmt":"2024-03-10T09:53:03","slug":"sc-in-absence-of-original-document-language-cannot-be-pressed-over-strong-contrary-evidence-scctimes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/10\/sc-in-absence-of-original-document-language-cannot-be-pressed-over-strong-contrary-evidence-scctimes\/","title":{"rendered":"Never Reported Judgment| In absence of original document, language cannot be pressed much into service over clear and strong contrary evidence [(1952) 2 SCC 754]"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> In an appeal filed by the appellants, the three-judges bench of B.K. Mukherjea, Chandrasekhara Aiyar*<\/span> and Ghulam Hasan, JJ., observed that the stress was laid by the respondents on the use of the words ‘him or his order’ in the promissory note, and it was argued that the language employed in the promissory note indicated an individual. The Supreme Court opined that the language used in a document, particularly in absence of originals, one was not able to say whether the translations were strictly correct or rather loose. The language could not be pressed much into service in face of the clear and strong evidence to the contrary. Thus, the Supreme Court disagreeing with the Allahabad High Court (‘the High Court’), opined that the appellant was entitled to sue for the recovery of the alleged due amount, as the promissory notes were executed in the Kshetra’s favour and not any individual.<\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

In the present case, Baba Kali Kamliwaley Panchaiti Kshetra, Rishikesh, the appellant was a charitable society registered under the Societies Registration,1860. The appellant filed a suit against the respondents, Lala Lachmi Chand and Onkar Prasad, for recovery of Rs 15,368-11-0 with interest and costs, said to be due on a loan advanced to Lala Lachmi Chand on 25-8-1928 and evidenced by the execution of promissory notes from time to time.<\/p>\n

The respondents stated that the appellant was not the payee under the original promissory note of 25-08-1928, which was the basis of the claim, and thus was legally barred from suing based on the said promissory note. Accordingly, five issues were framed, and the first was that the appellant was legally debarred from suing based on the promissory note, dated 25-8-1928.<\/p>\n

The Trial Court decided all the issues in the appellant’s favour and gave the Kshetra a decree for the amount claimed with costs and pending and future interest at 3% per annum. However, an appeal was filed to the High Court, wherein it was held that the payee was not the institution, but an individual, thus the appellant was legally barred from suing based on the promissory note.<\/p>\n

Thus, the appellant filed the present appeal.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law, and Decision<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court agreed with the appellant’s contention and noted that under the promissory note of 25-08-1928, the payee was mentioned as Shri 108 Baba Kali Kamliwaley Ram Nath Manni Ramji of Rishikesh, and it was not disputed that Ramnath who the disciple of the founder, Kali Kamliwaley, died in 1926. The Supreme Court opined that addition of his name and Manni Ramji to Shri 108 Baba Kali indicated that the reference was to the institution and not to any individual. Further, if Ramnathji, an individual, was the payee under the promissory note, the Supreme Court opined that it was faced with absurdity that it was executed in favour of a man who died 13 years before.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court noted the respondents’ reply to the appellant’s notice prior to the suit, wherein the first respondent acknowledged the Kshetra’s right to recover the amount and requested that as he was unable to pay the amount in one lump sum, it might be realised from him in instalments. The Supreme Court opined that it appeared form this documents that the demand was made on behalf of Shri 108 Baba Kali Kamliwaley Ramnathji, Rishikesh which obviously meant the institution.<\/p>\n

Further the Supreme Court observed that the stress was laid by the respondents on the use of the words ‘him or his order’ in the promissory note, and it was argued that the language employed indicated an individual. The Supreme Court opined that the language used in a document, particularly in absence of originals, one was not able to say whether the translations were strictly correct or rather loose. The language could not be pressed much into service in face of the clear and strong evidence to the contrary. Further, regarding the respondents’ contention that why the promissory notes were not taken in the name under which the Kshetra society was registered, the Supreme Court opined that the people responsible adhered to the older appellation of mentioning the guru’s names and disciples as more appropriate to its religious and charitable character.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Supreme Court disagreeing with the High Court, opined that the appellant was entitled to sue for the recovery of the alleged due amount, as the promissory notes were executed in the Kshetra’s favour and not any individual. The Supreme Court further opined that as there were other issues which had been left undecided, the matter had to go back to the High Court for decision and the respondents would pay the appellants costs that had incurred so far.<\/p>\n

[Baba Kali Wala Panchaiti Kshetra, Rishikesh v. Onkar Prasad, (1952) 2 SCC 754<\/a>, decided on 17-12-1952<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Note: Interpretation of deeds and documents<\/p>\n

In case of interpretation of deeds and documents, to ascertain the intention of the parties, the document must be considered as a while. Generally, the words employed in a deed\/document should be construed in its ordinary sense, unless there were indications to do otherwise. In Sant Ram v. Rajinder Lal<\/span>, (1979) 2 SCC 274<\/a>, it was held that two rules must be remembered while interpreting deeds and statutes. Firstly, in drafting it was not enough to gain a degree of precision which a person reading in good faith could understand, but it was necessary that a person reading in bad faith could not misunderstand. Secondly, so long as law was at the service of life, it could be divorced from the social setting. Thus, whenever there was a doubt regarding the interpretation, recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man and ask, if the step you contemplate was going to be of any use to him.<\/p>\n

*Judgment authored by- Justice Chandrasekhara Aiyar<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

For the Appellant:<\/span> S.P. Sinha, Senior Advocate (Krishna Behari Lal Aggarwal, Advocate, with him);<\/p>\n

For the Respondent:<\/span> Rang Behari Lal, Senior Advocate (Harnam Das, Advocate, with him)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on interpretation of deeds and documents.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67520,"featured_media":316622,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,58675],"tags":[66233,66235,66236,8631,58925,66232,66234,5363],"class_list":["post-316599","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casesreported","category-scc-never-reported-judgments-supreme-court","tag-clear","tag-contrary-evidence","tag-interpretation-of-documents","tag-language","tag-never-reported-judgment","tag-original-document","tag-strong","tag-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court's Never Reported Judgment on interpretation of deeds and documents| SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court opined that the appellant was entitled to sue, as the promissory notes were executed in the Kshetra\u2019s favour and not any individual.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/10\/sc-in-absence-of-original-document-language-cannot-be-pressed-over-strong-contrary-evidence-scctimes\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Never Reported Judgment| In absence of original document, language cannot be pressed much into service over clear and strong contrary evidence [(1952) 2 SCC 754]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court opined that the appellant was entitled to sue, as the promissory notes were executed in the Kshetra\u2019s favour and not any individual.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/10\/sc-in-absence-of-original-document-language-cannot-be-pressed-over-strong-contrary-evidence-scctimes\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-03-10T05:30:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-03-10T09:53:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/nRJ-3.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Arushi\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Never Reported Judgment| In absence of original document, language cannot be pressed much into service over clear and strong contrary evidence [(1952) 2 SCC 754]\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Arushi\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/10\/sc-in-absence-of-original-document-language-cannot-be-pressed-over-strong-contrary-evidence-scctimes\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/10\/sc-in-absence-of-original-document-language-cannot-be-pressed-over-strong-contrary-evidence-scctimes\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment on interpretation of deeds and documents| SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/10\/sc-in-absence-of-original-document-language-cannot-be-pressed-over-strong-contrary-evidence-scctimes\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/10\/sc-in-absence-of-original-document-language-cannot-be-pressed-over-strong-contrary-evidence-scctimes\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/nrj-3.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-03-10T05:30:59+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-03-10T09:53:03+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76\"},\"description\":\"Supreme Court opined that the appellant was entitled to sue, as the promissory notes were executed in the Kshetra\u2019s favour and not any individual.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/10\/sc-in-absence-of-original-document-language-cannot-be-pressed-over-strong-contrary-evidence-scctimes\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/10\/sc-in-absence-of-original-document-language-cannot-be-pressed-over-strong-contrary-evidence-scctimes\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/10\/sc-in-absence-of-original-document-language-cannot-be-pressed-over-strong-contrary-evidence-scctimes\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/nrj-3.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/nrj-3.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"language in document cannot be pressed over strong contrary evidence\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/10\/sc-in-absence-of-original-document-language-cannot-be-pressed-over-strong-contrary-evidence-scctimes\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Never Reported Judgment| In absence of original document, language cannot be pressed much into service over clear and strong contrary evidence [(1952) 2 SCC 754]\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76\",\"name\":\"Arushi\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Arushi\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/arushi\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment on interpretation of deeds and documents| SCC Times","description":"Supreme Court opined that the appellant was entitled to sue, as the promissory notes were executed in the Kshetra\u2019s favour and not any individual.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/10\/sc-in-absence-of-original-document-language-cannot-be-pressed-over-strong-contrary-evidence-scctimes\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Never Reported Judgment| In absence of original document, language cannot be pressed much into service over clear and strong contrary evidence [(1952) 2 SCC 754]","og_description":"Supreme Court opined that the appellant was entitled to sue, as the promissory notes were executed in the Kshetra\u2019s favour and not any individual.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/10\/sc-in-absence-of-original-document-language-cannot-be-pressed-over-strong-contrary-evidence-scctimes\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-03-10T05:30:59+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-03-10T09:53:03+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/nRJ-3.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Arushi","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Never Reported Judgment| In absence of original document, language cannot be pressed much into service over clear and strong contrary evidence [(1952) 2 SCC 754]","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Arushi","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/10\/sc-in-absence-of-original-document-language-cannot-be-pressed-over-strong-contrary-evidence-scctimes\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/10\/sc-in-absence-of-original-document-language-cannot-be-pressed-over-strong-contrary-evidence-scctimes\/","name":"Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment on interpretation of deeds and documents| SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/10\/sc-in-absence-of-original-document-language-cannot-be-pressed-over-strong-contrary-evidence-scctimes\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/10\/sc-in-absence-of-original-document-language-cannot-be-pressed-over-strong-contrary-evidence-scctimes\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/nrj-3.webp","datePublished":"2024-03-10T05:30:59+00:00","dateModified":"2024-03-10T09:53:03+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76"},"description":"Supreme Court opined that the appellant was entitled to sue, as the promissory notes were executed in the Kshetra\u2019s favour and not any individual.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/10\/sc-in-absence-of-original-document-language-cannot-be-pressed-over-strong-contrary-evidence-scctimes\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/10\/sc-in-absence-of-original-document-language-cannot-be-pressed-over-strong-contrary-evidence-scctimes\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/10\/sc-in-absence-of-original-document-language-cannot-be-pressed-over-strong-contrary-evidence-scctimes\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/nrj-3.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/nrj-3.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"language in document cannot be pressed over strong contrary evidence"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/10\/sc-in-absence-of-original-document-language-cannot-be-pressed-over-strong-contrary-evidence-scctimes\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Never Reported Judgment| In absence of original document, language cannot be pressed much into service over clear and strong contrary evidence [(1952) 2 SCC 754]"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76","name":"Arushi","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Arushi"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/arushi\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/nrj-3.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":265098,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/06\/signatures-on-the-vakalat\/","url_meta":{"origin":316599,"position":0},"title":"AP HC | Signatures on the Vakalat and the Written Statement cannot be considered as signatures of comparable and assured standard for want of expert opinion under S. 45 Evidence Act","author":"Editor","date":"April 6, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Andhra Pradesh High Court: Ninala Surya, J., decided to not interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the civil writ petition. The facts of the case are such that the respondent\/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs 1, 71,600\/- with future interest and costs. The petitioner\/defendant\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":241604,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/01\/patent-and-latent-ambiguities-as-explained-by-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":316599,"position":1},"title":"Patent and latent ambiguities, as explained by Supreme Court","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"January 1, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: While settling the dispute between Anglo American Metallurgical Coal (AAMC) and MMTC Ltd, the bench of RF Nariman* and KM Joseph, JJ had the occasion to explain the concept of \u201cpatent\" and \"latent\" ambiguity and held, \u201c\u2026 a \u201cpatent ambiguity\u201d provision, as contained in section 94 of the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":282793,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/31\/evidence-witness-recording-language-vernacular-appreciation-supreme-court-section-277-crpc-trial-court-criminal-law-supreme-court-legal-research-knowledge-update-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":316599,"position":2},"title":"Evidence can be appreciated best only when it is recorded in the language of the witness: Supreme Court","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"January 31, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The observation of the Supreme Court came in a case where the deposition of the prosecutrix was recorded by the trial court in English language though she had deposed in her vernacular language.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/MicrosoftTeams-image-237.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":299677,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/20\/practice-merely-agreeing-with-lower-courts-not-satisfactory-appellate-court-should-give-clear-indication-evidence-it-relies-on-sc\/","url_meta":{"origin":316599,"position":3},"title":"Never Reported Judgment | Practice of merely agreeing with lower courts is not satisfactory; Appellate court should give clear indication of evidence it relies on [(1952) 1 SCC 432]","author":"Simranjeet","date":"August 20, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"This report covers the Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on duty of appellate court under Criminal Procedure Code, 1898.","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"duty of appellate court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/duty-of-appellate-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/duty-of-appellate-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/duty-of-appellate-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/duty-of-appellate-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":98051,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/01\/06\/a-judgment-announced-but-not-available-on-records-cannot-be-considered-a-judgment\/","url_meta":{"origin":316599,"position":4},"title":"A judgment announced but not available on records cannot be considered a \u2018judgment\u2019","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"January 6, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: Reminding the courts of their judicial duties, the bench of Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy, JJ said that a trial Judge should remember that he has immense responsibility as he has a lawful duty to record the evidence in the prescribed manner keeping in mind the command postulated\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":249864,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/16\/explained-when-can-proviso-6-to-section-92-of-evidence-act-1872-be-invoked\/","url_meta":{"origin":316599,"position":5},"title":"Explained| When can proviso (6) to Section 92 of Evidence Act, 1872 be invoked?","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"June 16, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: Explaining the scope of Section 92 Proviso (6) of the Evidence Act, 1872, the 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJ*\u00a0and Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose, JJ has held that the said proviso can be resorted to only in cases where the terms of the document leave the question\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/316599","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67520"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=316599"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/316599\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/316622"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=316599"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=316599"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=316599"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}