Not Proved - Law Dictionary Search Results
Home Dictionary Name: not provedNot proved
Not proved, a fact is said not to be proved when it is neither proved nor disproved, (Evidence Act, 1872, s. 3)--there is difference between 'not proved' and 'false'. Merely not able to prove cannot be in all cases categorised as false, Abdul Rashid Khan v. P.A.K.A. Shahul Hamid, (2000) 10 SCC 636 (641). [Evidence Act, 1872, s. 3]...
Cause of action
Cause of action, a cause of action is a bundle of facts which are required to be pleaded and proved for the purpose of obtaining relief claimed in the suit. For the aforementioned purpose, the material facts are required to be stated but not the evidence except in certain cases where the pleading relied on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default or undue influence, Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assocn. v. M.V. Sea Success, (2004) 9 SCC 512 (562). [Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O. 7, R. 11(9)]--It is only that court in whose jurisdiction the 'cause of action' did arise will have Jurisdiction to entertain an application either under section 9 or under section 11 of the Act (Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996); Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd. Kolkata v. Tiwari Roadlines, Hyderabad, AIR 2006 AP 1.Means every fact which it is necessary to establish to support a right to obtain a judgment, Prem Chand Vijay Kumar v. Yashpal Singh, (2005) 4 SCC 417.Is a bundle of facts...
Proved
Proved, there is no difference between the general rules of evidence in civil and criminal cases, and the definition of 'proved' in s. 3 of the Evidence Act does not draw a distinction between civil and criminal cases. Nor does this definition insist on perfect proof because absolute certainty amounting to demonstration is rarely to be had in the affairs of life. Nevertheless, the standard of measuring proof prescribed by the definition, is that of a person of prudence and practical good sense. 'Proof' means the effect of the evidence adduced in the case, Ch. Razik Ram v. Ch. Jaswant Singh Chouhan, AIR 1975 SC 667: (1975) 4 SCC 769.(ii) S. 3 of the Evidence Act, a fact is said to be 'proved' when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable than a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. This definition of 'proved' does not draw any distinctio...
Circumstantial evidence
Circumstantial evidence, presumptive proof when the fact itself is not proved by direct testimony, but is to be inferred from circumstances, which either necessarily or usually attend such facts. It is obvious that a presumption is more or less likely to be true according as it is more or less probable that the circumstances would not have exited unless the fact which is inferred from them had also existed; and that a presumption can only be relied on until the contrary is actually proved. Circumstantial evidence has, in some instances, undoubtedly been found to produce a much stronger assurance of a prisoner's guilt than could have been produced by more direct and positive testimony. As a general principle, however, it is true that positive evidence of a fact from credible eye-witnesses is the most satisfactory that can be produced; and the universal feeling of mankind leans to this species of evidence in preference to that which is merely circumstantial. If positive evidence of a fac...
Unless the contrary is proved
Unless the contrary is proved, the words 'unless the contrary is proved' mean that the presumption raised by s. 4 has to be rebutted by proof and not by bare explanation which may be merely plausible. The required proof need not be such as is expected for sustaining a criminal conviction: it need only establish a high degree of probability, State of Assam v. Krishna Rao, AIR 1973 SC 28 (37): (1973) 3 SCC 227: (1973) 2 SCR 239. [Prevention of Corruption Act (2 of 1947), s. 4]...
Unless and until the contrary is proved
Unless and until the contrary is proved, significance and effect of presumption under parties in contract themselves providing a sum to be paid by the party breaking the contract-Whether this provision removes the presumption under-Whether after removal of his presumption bar under s. 21 oper-ates. (ii) The fact that the parties themselves have provided a sum to be paid by the party breaking the contract does not, by itself, remove the strong presumption contemplated by the use of the words 'unless and until the contrary is proved'. The sufficiency or insufficiency of any evidence to remove such a presumption is a matter of evidence, M.L. Devender Singh v. Syed Khaja, AIR 1973 SC 2457: (1973) 2 SCC 515: (1974) 1 SCR 312....
prove
prove proved proved or: prov·en [prü-vən] prov·ing 1 : to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of [ a will at probate] 2 a : to establish the existence, truth, or validity of [the charges were never proved in court] b : to provide sufficient proof of or that [proved the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt] prov·able [prü-və-bəl] adj prov·able·ness n prov·ably [prü-və-blē] adv ...
Petitio principii
Petitio principii, begging the question, which is the taking of a thing in itself in dispute or not proved or false, for true or for granted, and drawing conclusions from it as such, when it is really dubious, perhaps false, or at least wants to be proved, before any rational inference can be drawn from it. For a discussion of the further question 'Is the syllogism a petitio principii?' see 1 Mill's Log., bk. 2, chap. 3, s. 1....
Consultation
Consultation, in Words and Phrases (Permanent Edition, 1960, Volume 9, page 3) to 'consult' is defined as 'to discuss something together, to deliberate'. Corpus Juris Secundum (Volume 16A, Edn. 1956, page 1242) also says that the word 'consult' is frequently defined as meaning 'to discuss something together, or to deliberate'. By giving an opportunity to consultation or deliberation the purpose thereof is to enable the Judges to make their respective points of view known to the others and discuss and examine the relative merits of their view, High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. P.P. Singh, (2003) 4 SCC 239: AIR 2003 SC 1029 (1038). [Rules of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan (1952), R. 15]A writ in the nature of a procedendo, whereby a cause, having been removed by prohibition from the Ecclesiastical Court to the King's Court, is returned thither again; for if the judges of the King's Court, upon comparing the libel with the suggestion of the party, find the suggestion false...
comment
comment 1 often cap a : an essay analyzing, criticizing, or explaining a subject [a published in the Yale Law Review] b : an explanatory remark appended to a section of text (as of enacted code) 2 : an expression of an opinion or attitude about something: as a : a remark to a jury by a judge or prosecutor about evidence NOTE: A prosecutor may not remark to the jury that a defendant's failure to testify implies guilt, and a judge may not remark to the jury his or her opinion about what the evidence does or does not prove. b : a written expression of opinion or information solicited by an agency about a subject of its rulemaking see also informal rulemaking ...
- << Prev.
- Next >>
Sign-up to get more results
Unlock complete result pages and premium legal research features.
Start Free Trial