Showing posts with label Chapter 5. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chapter 5. Show all posts

Sunday, March 20, 2016

Section 70 Indian Evidence Act

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Act 1 of 1872]
Part II - On Proof
Chapter V / 5 :  Of Documentary Evidence

IEA 70 : Section 70 of the Indian Evidence Act:

Admission of execution by party to attested document.—The admission of a party to an attested document of its execution by himself shall be sufficient proof of its execution as against him, though it be a document required by law to be attested.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 70 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Lothamasu Sambasiva Rao vs Thadwarthi Balakotiah on 14 November, 1972 - Andhra High Court 
Ram Nahak And Ors. vs Sita Dakuani And Ors. on 19 August, 1969 - Orissa High Court 
Arjun Chandra Bhadra vs Kailas Chandra Das And Ors. on 15 June, 1922 - Calcutta High Court 
Sheo Nath Prasad vs Sarjoo Nonia And Anr. on 12 March, 1943 - Allahabad High Court 
Timmavva Dundappa Budihal vs Channava Appaya Kanasgeri on 13 December, 1946 - Bombay High Court 
Satish Chandra Mitra vs Jogendra Nath Mahalanobis on 26 May, 1916 - Calcutta High Court 
Lita Srinivasan vs S.V.Jayaraman on 1 November, 2010 - Madras High Court 
E.Su. Na. Sheikh Davood Rowther vs N.R.M.N. Ramanathan Chettiar on 4 August, 1937 - Madras High Court 
Smt. Rukhamabai W/O Vithobaji vs Narsuram And Ors. on 7 April, 2003 - Bombay High Court 
Sahib Chandra Singh And On His vs Gour Chandra Paul And Ors. on 10 February, 1922 - Calcutta High Court 

Section 69 Indian Evidence Act

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Act 1 of 1872]
Part II - On Proof
Chapter V / 5 :  Of Documentary Evidence

IEA 69 : Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act:

Proof where no attesting witness found.—If no such attesting witness can be found, or if the document purports to have been executed in the United Kingdom, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing the document is in the handwriting of that person.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 69 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Bhagavathiammal vs Marimuthu Ammal on 30 March, 2010 - Madras High Court 
Punathummal Kalladan Janaki vs Parammal Kalladan Madhavi on 13 July, 2011 - Kerala High Court 
Babu Singh & Ors vs Ram Sahai @ Ram Singh on 30 April, 2008 - Supreme Court of India 
(Against The Judgment And Decree vs C.G. Raveendran on 31 October, 2012 - Kerala High Court 
In The High Court Of Judicature vs D.Albert on 29 July, 2015 - Madras High Court 
L. Bakthavatsalam vs R. Alagiriswamy (Died) on 12 October, 2007 - Madras High Court 
Dharmaraj vs Rajalingam on 18 July, 2007 - Madras High Court 
Haradhan Mahatha And Ors. vs Dukhu Mahatha on 3 March, 1993 - Patna High Court 
State Of Haryana vs Shanti Devi on 10 July, 2012 - Punjab-Haryana High Court 
N.Radhabai vs Maruthambal on 26 July, 2011 - Madras High Court 

Section 68 Indian Evidence Act

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Act 1 of 1872]
Part II - On Proof
Chapter V / 5 :  Of Documentary Evidence

IEA 68 : Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act:

Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.—If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence: 1[Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a Will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.]

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 68 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Ramachandra Marthandam vs Linga Vijayan on 13 April, 2010 - Madras High Court  
Valliammal vs Sokkammal on 26 March, 2012 - Madras High Court 
Paramu Radhakrishnan vs Bharathan on 9 August, 1989 - Kerala High Court 
K.M. Varghese And Ors. vs K.M. Oommen And Ors. on 20 July, 1993 - Kerala High Court 
Devassykutty vs Visalakshy Amma on 29 June, 2010 - Kerala High Court 
L. Bakthavatsalam vs R. Alagiriswamy (Died) on 12 October, 2007 - Madras High Court 
M. Kuppusamy Naicker vs M. Mani on 2 September, 2009 - Madras High Court 
Smt. Bimla Devi @ Bimal Devi vs Uma Devi on 3 March, 2016 - Patna High Court 
Jivaji Framroze Tarachand vs Hyderbad - 5 on 25 September, 2014 - Bombay High Court 
Janki Narayan Bhoir vs Narayan Namdeo Kadam on 17 December, 2002 - Supreme Court of India 

Section 67A Indian Evidence Act

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Act 1 of 1872]
Part II - On Proof
Chapter V / 5 :  Of Documentary Evidence

IEA 67A : Section 67-A of the Indian Evidence Act:

[ 67A Proof as to [electronic signature]. —Except in the case of a secure [electronic signature], if the [electronic signature] of any subscriber is alleged to have been affixed to an electronic record the fact that such [electronic signature] is the [electronic signature] of the subscriber must be proved.]

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 67A Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Ibrahim Khan And Ors. vs Gowram Kondaiah And Ors. on 5 July, 2002 - Andhra High Court 
Most. Sheoraj Devi & Ors vs Shukhdeo Nonia & Ors on 22 December, 2014 - Patna High Court 
Bodala Murali Krishna vs Smt. Bodala Prathima on 11 October, 2006 - Andhra High Court 
Bodala Murali Krishna vs Smt. Bodala Prathima on 11 October, 2006 - Andhra High Court 

Section 67 Indian Evidence Act

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Act 1 of 1872]
Part II - On Proof
Chapter V / 5 :  Of Documentary Evidence

IEA 67 : Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act:

Proof of signature and handwriting of person alleged to have signed or written document produced.—If a document is alleged to be signed or to have been written wholly or in part by any person, the signature or the handwriting of so much of the document as is alleged to be in that person’s handwriting must be proved to be in his handwriting.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 67 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Balwinder Singh @ Binda Son vs Narcotics Control Bureau on 8 July, 2013 - Punjab-Haryana High Court 
Ramkrishan Ganpat Futane And Ors. vs Mohammad Kasam And Ors. on 21 August, 1972 - Bombay High Court 
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Rishi Pratap Singh & Ors. on 21 November, 2012 - Delhi High Court 
Kunhamina Umma And Ors. vs Special Tahsildar And Ors. on 18 August, 1976 - Kerala High Court 
Beer Pal & Ors. vs Arvind Kumar & Ors. on 18 September, 2012 - Delhi High Court - Cites 25 
Rajinder Kumar vs Lal Bachan & Ors. on 29 November, 2012 - Delhi High Court 
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Umesh Singh & Ors. on 3 December, 2012 - Delhi High Court 
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Yogendra Narayan Yadav & Ors. on 4 December, 2012 - Delhi High Court 
Miyana Hasan Abdulla And Anr. vs State Of Gujarat on 28 June, 1961 - Gujarat High Court 
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Arvind Kumar & Ors on 6 August, 2012 - Delhi High Court 

Section 66 Indian Evidence Act

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Act 1 of 1872]
Part II - On Proof
Chapter V / 5 :  Of Documentary Evidence

IEA 66 : Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act:

Rules as to notice to produce.—Secondary evidence of the contents of the documents referred to in section 65, clause
(a) , shall not be given unless the party proposing to give such secondary evidence has previously given to the party in whose possession or power the document is, 1[or to his attorney or pleader,] such notice to produce it as is prescribed by law; and if no notice is prescribed by law, then such notice as the Court considers reasonable under the circumstances of the case:—Secondary evidence of the contents of the documents referred to in section 65, clause (a), shall not be given unless the party proposing to give such secondary evidence has previously given to the party in whose possession or power the document is, 1[or to his attorney or pleader,] such notice to produce it as is prescribed by law; and if no notice is prescribed by law, then such notice as the Court considers reasonable under the circumstances of the case\:" Provided that such notice shall not be required in order to render secondary evidence admissible in any of the following cases, or in any other case in which the Court thinks fit to dispense with it:—
(1) when the document to be proved is itself a notice;
(2) when, from the nature of the case, the adverse party must know that he will be required to produce it;
(3) when it appears or is proved that the adverse party has obtained possession of the original by fraud or force;
(4) when the adverse party or his agent has the original in Court;
(5) when the adverse party or his agent has admitted the loss of the document;
(6) when the person in possession of the document is out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 66 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Behram Khurshed Pesikaka vs The State Of Bombay.Reference  on 19 February, 1954 - Supreme Court of India 
Behram Khurshed Pesikaka vs The State Of Bombay on 24 September, 1954 - Supreme Court of India 
K. Krishna Appala Naidu vs B. Sohanlal And Ors. on 30 April, 2004 - Andhra High Court 
Kashibai Martand vs Vinayak Ganesh And Ors. on 22 February, 1955 - Bombay High Court 
Namburu Bulli Veera Bhadra Prasad vs Vegi Venkata Satyanarayana  on 16 December, 1997 - Andhra High Court 
Chhaganji Khengarji And Anr. vs State Of Gujarat on 22 August, 1969 - Gujarat High Court 
Hameed And Ors. vs Kanhaiya on 27 July, 2004 - Allahabad High Court 
Ram Das Singh And Another vs Duli Chand on 17 April, 2013 - Allahabad High Court 
Salman Salim Khan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 December, 2015 - Bombay High Court 
Saudul Azeez vs District Judge, Gorakhpur on 21 September, 1999 - Allahabad High Court 

Section 65B Indian Evidence Act

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Act 1 of 1872]
Part II - On Proof
Chapter V / 5 :  Of Documentary Evidence

IEA 65B : Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act:

65B. Admissibility of electronic records.—
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence of any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible.
(2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely:—
(a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer;
(b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities;
(c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and
(d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities.
(3) Where over any period, the function of storing or processing information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) was regularly performed by computers, whether—
(a) by a combination of computers operating over that period; or
(b) by different computers operating in succession over that period; or
(c) by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that period; or
(d) in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combinations of computers, all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer; and references in this section to a computer shall be construed accordingly.
(4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say,—
(a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;
(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer;
(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this sub-section it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it.
(5) For the purposes of this section,—
(a) infomation shall be taken to be supplied to a computer if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form and whether it is so supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment;
(b) whether in the course of activities carried on by any official information is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities by a computer operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if duly supplied to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities;
(c) a computer output shall be taken to have been produced by a computer whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section any reference to information being derived from other information shall be a reference to its being derived therefrom by calculation, comparison or any other process.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 65B Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Kundan Singh vs The State on 24 November, 2015 - Delhi High Court 
Kamal Patel vs Ram Kishore Dogne on 4 January, 2016 - Madhya Pradesh High Court 
S.K. Saini & Anr vs C.B.I. on 19 August, 2015 - Delhi High Court 
Anvar P.V vs P.K.Basheer & Ors on 18 September, 2014 - Supreme Court of India 
K. Ramajayam @ Appu vs The Inspector Of Police on 27 January, 2016 - Madras High Court 
K. Ramajayam @ Appu vs The Inspector Of Police on 27 January, 2016 - Madras High Court 
Abdul Rahaman Kunji vs The State Of West Bengal on 14 November, 2014 - Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) 
Rakesh Kumar & Ors. vs State on 27 August, 2009 - Delhi High Court 
Mr. Manoj Kumar S vs State Of Karnataka on 30 June, 2015 - Karnataka High Court 
Achchey Lal Yadav vs State on 4 September, 2014 - Delhi High Court 

Section 65A Indian Evidence Act

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Act 1 of 1872]
Part II - On Proof
Chapter V / 5 :  Of Documentary Evidence

IEA 65A : Section 65-A of the Indian Evidence Act:

65A. Special provisions as to evidence relating to electronic record.—The contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with the provisions of section 65B.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 65A Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Kamal Patel vs Ram Kishore Dogne on 4 January, 2016 - Madhya Pradesh High Court 
S.K. Saini & Anr vs C.B.I. on 19 August, 2015 - Delhi High Court 
Kundan Singh vs The State on 24 November, 2015 - Delhi High Court 
Societe Des Products Nestle S.A. vs Essar Industries And Ors. on 4 September, 2006 - Delhi High Court 
Anvar P.V vs P.K.Basheer & Ors on 18 September, 2014 - Supreme Court of India 
Mr. Manoj Kumar S vs State Of Karnataka on 30 June, 2015 - Karnataka High Court 
Jagdish @ Nagina vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 October, 2015 - Madhya Pradesh High Court 
Rakesh Jain vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 3 February, 2016 - Punjab-Haryana High Court 
Navnath Bhikuji Salunkhe And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 June, 2015 - Bombay High Court 
Sanjay Narayan Zingdekar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 June, 2015 - Bombay High Court

Section 65 Indian Evidence Act

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Act 1 of 1872]
Part II - On Proof
Chapter V / 5 :  Of Documentary Evidence

IEA 65 : Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act:

Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given.—Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition, or contents of a document in the following cases:—
(a) When the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power— of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in section 66, such person does not produce it;
(b) when the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest;
(c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time;
(d) when the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable;
(e) when the original is a public document within the meaning of section 74;
(f) when the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in 1[India] to be given in evidence2; 1[India] to be given in evidence2;"
(g) when the originals consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court, and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collection. In cases (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of the contents of the document is admissible. In case (b), the written admission is admissible. In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible. In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 65 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Smt. Rekha Rana And Ors. vs Smt. Ratnashree Jain on 17 August, 2005 - Madhya Pradesh High Court 
Jamuna Prasad & Ors. vs Shivnandan & Ors on 29 July, 2011 - Madhya Pradesh High Court 
G. Chikkapapanna Alias G.C. vs Smt. Kenchamma (Deceased) By L.Rs on 19 June, 1998 - Karnataka High Court 
Gordhan Lal Agarwal vs Shri Mali Ram &Anr on 21 January, 2013 - Rajasthan High Court 
Kashibai Martand vs Vinayak Ganesh And Ors. on 22 February, 1955 - Bombay High Court 
Arunkumar Pritmalal And Anr. vs Ramanlal Shagubhai on 21 January, 1974 - Gujarat High Court 
Sarvabhauman vs Notavailable on 27 March, 2013 - Madras High Court 
M/S Electro Mechanical Enginee vs Additional District Judge Fast on 1 August, 2012 - Rajasthan High Court 
Yeshwant Rambhau Chondhe Since vs Vilas Bapurao Shinde Since on 28 June, 2007 - Bombay High Court 
Mr. Bharat Singh vs Mr. Hemant Dutt on 16 February, 2015 - Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur 

Saturday, March 19, 2016

Section 64 Indian Evidence Act

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Act 1 of 1872]
Part II - On Proof
Chapter V / 5 :  Of Documentary Evidence

IEA 64 : Section 64 of the Indian Evidence Act:

Proof of documents by primary evidence.— Documents must be proved by primary evidence except in the cases hereinafter mentioned.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 64 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation vs Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. on 7 October, 2015 - Delhi High Court  
P.M.Mohanan vs State Of Kerala on 24 March, 2010 - Kerala High Court 
N.R. Revanna vs T.V. Mallappa And Ors. on 1 September, 1964 - Karnataka High Court 
Four Bhai Private Ltd. vs Walaiti Ram And Anr. on 28 February, 1973 - Delhi High Court 
Jamuna Prasad & Ors. vs Shivnandan & Ors on 29 July, 2011 - Madhya Pradesh High Court 
Sarvabhauman vs Notavailable on 27 March, 2013 - Madras High Court 
Against The Order/Judgment In vs Shaikh Farid & Others on 10 January, 2002 - Kerala High Court 
Thursday vs By Advs.Sri.P.Vijaya Bhanu - Kerala High Court 
Sri Krishna Chit Funds (Sattur vs R.S. Pillai And Another on 28 April, 2000 - Madras High Court 
G. Udayakumar vs The Kerala Co-Operative Tribunal - Kerala High Court 

Section 63 Indian Evidence Act

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Act 1 of 1872]
Part II - On Proof
Chapter V / 5 :  Of Documentary Evidence

IEA 63 : Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act:

Secondary evidence.—Secondary evidence means and includes—
(1) Certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained1;1;"
(2) Copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies;
(3) Copies made from or compared with the original;
(4) Counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them;
(5) Oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it. Illustrations
(a) A photograph of an original is secondary evidence of its contents, though the two have not been compared, if it is proved that the thing photographed was the original.
(b) A copy compared with a copy of a letter made by a copying machine is secondary evidence of the contents of the letter, if it is shown that the copy made by the copying machine was made from the original.
(c) A copy transcribed from a copy, but afterwards compared with the original, is secondary evidence; but the copy not so compared is not secondary evidence of the original, although the copy from which it was transcribed was compared with the original.
(d) Neither an oral account of a copy compared with the original, nor an oral account of a photograph or machine-copy of the original, is secondary evidence of the original. COMMENTS Admissibility Application moved for permission to lead secondary evidence based on ground of loss of document. Presence of document proved from the facts pleaded - Allowing secondary evidence not illegal; Sobha Rani v. Ravikumar, AIR 1999 P&H 21. Tape-recorded statements are admissible in evidence; K.S. Mohan v. Sandhya Mohan, AIR 1993 Mad 59. Certified copies of money lender’s licences are admissible in evidence; K. Shivalingaiah v. B.V. Chandrashekara Gowda, AIR 1993 Kant 29.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 63 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Jagdish Chand Sharma vs Narain Singh Saini (Dead) Thr. on 1 May, 2015 - Supreme Court of India 
Ms. Sumitra Devi And Ors. vs State And Ors. on 15 May, 2007 - Delhi High Court 
Smt. Lachcho vs Dwari Mal on 5 August, 1985 - Allahabad High Court 
Gaurav Singh vs General Public & Ors on 24 February, 2016 - Patna High Court 
Harijiwan Sahu vs Jairam Sahu And Ors. on 26 September, 1988 - Patna High Court 
Shrichand Girdharilal Batra vs Life Insurance Corporation on 1 October, 1993 - Bombay High Court 
Dayashankar And Others vs Jaishankar Since Deceased on 22 November, 2011 - Chattisgarh High Court 
P.K. Kalliani Amma And Ors. vs M.T. Narayanan Nambiar And Ors. on 22 September, 1914 - Madras High Court 
Devassykutty vs Visalakshy Amma on 29 June, 2010 - Kerala High Court  
Sunil Kumar And Anr. vs Smt. Anguri Choudhari And Anr. on 1 April, 2002 - Madhya Pradesh High Court 
Patel Maganbhai Bapujibhai vs Patel Ishwarbhai Motibhai on 20 April, 1983 - Gujarat High Court 
Cr No.6 Of 2012 vs Surinder Singh And Others on 11 November, 2013 - Punjab-Haryana High Court 
The State Of Maharashtra vs Krishnaawatar Daulatsingh Madan on 2 March, 2012 - Bombay High Court 
Anvar P.V vs P.K.Basheer & Ors on 18 September, 2014 - Supreme Court of India 
Dr. Jeevan Bahadur Samaddar vs Govind Charan Samaddar And Others on 30 May, 2013 - Allahabad High Court 
Kamal Patel vs Ram Kishore Dogne on 4 January, 2016 - Madhya Pradesh High Court 
Chandrakant Bhalchandra Garware vs Anil Prabhakar Naik And Ors. on 9 February, 2000 - Bombay High Court 
R. Saraswathy vs P. Bhavathy Ammal And Anr. on 6 September, 1988 - Kerala High Court 
Kuldeep Singh And Others vs Raj Kumar And Others on 6 November, 2013 - Punjab-Haryana High Court 
Surinder Kaur vs Mehal Singh And Others on 4 December, 2013 - Punjab-Haryana High Court 

Section 62 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 62 : Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act:

Primary evidence.—Primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court. Explanation 1.—Where a document is executed in several parts, each part is primary evidence of the document; Where a document is executed in counterpart, each counterpart being executed by one or some of the parties only, each counterpart is primary evidence as against the parties executing it. Explanation 2.—Where a number of documents are all made by one uniform process, as in the case of printing, lithography, or photography, each is primary evidence of the contents of the rest; but, where they are all copies of a common original, they are not primary evidence of the contents of the original. Illustration A person is shown to have been in possession of a number of placards, all printed at one time from one original. Any one of the placards is primary evidence of the contents of any other, but no one of them is primary evidence of the contents of the original.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 62 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Theresa vs Special Court Under A.P. Land on 22 September, 1998 - Andhra High Court 
K.K.Vijayachandran vs The Superintendent Of Police on 29 September, 2006 - Kerala High Court 
Chumman Singh And Ors. vs The State Of Bihar on 28 July, 2006 - Patna High Court 
U.Shankar vs State Represented By on 10 August, 2011 - Madras High Court 
K.R. Easwaramurthi Goundan vs The King-Emperor on 23 February, 1944 - Bombay High Court 
Gutta Sriramulu Naidu And Anr. vs The State on 21 July, 1961 - Andhra High Court 
High Court Of Karnataka vs Syed Mohammed Ibrahim on 17 December, 2014 - Karnataka High Court 
Vithal Ramrao Ingale (Patil) vs Navalbai Digambar Deshmukh on 4 July, 2002 - Bombay High Court 
Krishna Sahebrao Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 March, 2014 - Bombay High Court 
Pandit Salig Ram vs Radhay Shiam on 25 February, 1931 - Allahabad High Court 

Section 61 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 61 : Section 61 of the Indian Evidence Act:

Proof of contents of documents.—The contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 61 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
The Assistant Director vs Khader Sulaiman, P. Krishnasamy on 9 January, 2003 - Madras High Court 
The Assistant Director vs Khader Sulaiman on 9 January, 2003 - Madras High Court 
Jit Singh Mohar Singh vs Municipal Committee And Anr. on 23 October, 1959 - Punjab-Haryana High Court 
K.K.Vijayachandran vs The Superintendent Of Police on 29 September, 2006 - Kerala High Court 
Ratan Roy vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 14 March, 1950 - Patna High Court 
Vithal Ramrao Ingale (Patil) vs Navalbai Digambar Deshmukh on 4 July, 2002 - Bombay High Court 
Chinnappan vs Rosemary on 2 April, 2014 - Madras High Court 
Bhima Tima Dhotre vs The Pioneer Chemical Co. on 23 June, 1967 - Bombay High Court 
Smt. Rekha Rana And Ors. vs Smt. Ratnashree Jain on 17 August, 2005 - Madhya Pradesh High Court 
The State Of Maharashtra vs Krishnaawatar Daulatsingh Madan on 2 March, 2012 - Bombay High Court