When the plaintiff has accepted the signature of the defendant as the admitted signature, there can be no objection to the Court to send the same for experts opinion. The present one is a converse case where the defendant himself wants his signatures available in the suit record to be treated as admitted signatures. The plaintiff cannot be put to the risk of sending such signatures for experts opinion unless he has agreed for the proposal of the defendant. As respondent No.1 objected to the petitioners request and in the absence of availability of admitted contemporaneous signatures, the lower Court has rightly rejected the petitioners request. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of the lower Court for interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

When the plaintiff has accepted the signature of the defendant as the admitted signature, there can be no objection to the Court to send the same for experts opinion. The present one is a converse case where the defendant himself wants his signatures available in the suit record to be treated as admitted signatures. The plaintiff cannot be put to the risk of sending such signatures for experts opinion unless he has agreed for the proposal of the defendant. As respondent No.1 objected to the petitioners request and in the absence of availability of admitted contemporaneous signatures, the lower Court has rightly rejected the petitioners request. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of the lower Court for interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Popular posts from this blog

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - permission of court for selling minor property by natural guardian- In the present case, though it is stated that the property has been sold for the proper benefit of the minors, their protection, education and marriage,there is nothing on record to suggest that previous permission of the Court was obtained by the natural guardian before transfer by sale in question.-2015 S.C.(2013) MSKLAWREPORTS24

APEX COURT DIGEST 2016 - 1

Section 25(1) of the Customs Act-exempted from payment of customs duty and additional duty leviable under the Customs Tariff Act.-Under Notification No.17/2001, that the benefit of duty exemption is available only for the import of the plant in full either in CKD or SKD condition. - The subject import can be considered only as a part of the plant.-Therefore, the goods under import are not eligible for the duty exemption as provided under the Notification No.17/2001.-what was imported was not a hot mix plant but only certain parts of such plant and, therefore, the exemption notification would not apply. -It is settled law that statements made to an Officer of Customs are admissible in evidence under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.In the present case, both the oral evidence and the documentary evidence ultimately lead to the same conclusion: namely, that what was imported was not a hot mix plant that was complete in itself. - But not an unassembled Hot Mix Plant -have no application to an exemption notification which is issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act. - 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPROTS