Gimpex Pvt. Ltd. v. Manoj Goel

Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 – Section 139 raises the presumption “unless the contrary is proved”. Once the complainant discharges the burden of proving that the instrument was executed by the accused; the presumption under Section 139 shifts the burden on the accused. The expression “unless the contrary is proved” would demonstrate that it is only for the accused at the trial to adduce evidence of such facts or circumstances on the basis of which the burden would stand discharged. These are matters of evidence and trial.

Milkhi Ram v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 25B and 25F – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Whether the suit before the civil court at the instance of the terminated employee, was maintainable ? Held, the civil court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a suit structured on the provisions of the ID Act. The decree favouring the plaintiff is a legal nullity.

Md. Equbal v.  Madina Begum

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 26 – Succession Act, 1925 – Section 295 – Whether decree is to be prepared in a probate case ? Whether a contentious proceeding referred under Section 295 of the Act, 1925 has same meaning as of a suit filed under Section 26 of the C.P.C. ? Whether a petition filed under Section 272 or Section 273 of the Act, 1925 can be treated to be a plaint and its presentation before the competent court can be treated to be presentation of a plaint so as to consider it to be a suit instituted under Section 26 r/w Order IV rule 1 CPC. ?

Rajesh Ebrahimkutty Majidhabeevi v. State of NCT of Delhi

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 82 – Proclamation for person absconding – the provisions of Section 82(1) and (2) Cr.P.C. should be construed strictly. Before issuing process, a Court is required to record its satisfaction that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself to avoid execution of warrants.

V. Prabhakara v. Basavaraj K.

Will – A mere exclusion of either brother or sister per se would not create a suspicion unless it is surrounded by other circumstances creating an inference. In a case where a testatrix is accompanied by the sister of the beneficiary of the Will and the said document is attested by the brother, there is no room for any suspicion when both of them have not raised any issue.

Dipali Biswas v. Nirmalendu Mukherjee

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Order XXI – Execution – Provisions available to a judgment-­debtor to stall execution – the case on hand is fit to be included in the syllabus of a law school as a study material for students to get equipped with the various provisions of the Code relating to execution.