Information technology act and Email

The Indian Evidence Act prescribes the admissibility and the procedure as to how the veracity and the value of evidence are gauged. Originally passed in 1872 the enactment has been kept relevant through frequent amendments and insertions. One such amendment caused by the Information Technology Act, 2000 inserted a bunch of sections relating to digital evidence.
The first is Section 65A which states that  the contents of electronic records may be proved in evidence by the parties in accordance with the provisions of Section 65B. Going further, Section 65B, sub clause 1 states that on the fulfillment of certain conditions any information contained in an electronic record shall be deemed to be a document and shall be admissible in evidence without further proof or production of the originals. This means that a person filing the printout of an email in court can rely upon it as an original without the need to actually file the original softcopy of it.
The conditions under which this may be done are contained under sub-clause 2 of Section 65B which reads as follows:

Print Page

How to rely an email in court

A Model Affidavit

Bombay High Court

Ark Shipping Co. Ltd. vs Grt Shipmanagement Pvt. Ltd. on 26 July, 2007

Equivalent citations: 2008 (1) ARBLR 317 Bom

Author: A V Mohta

Bench: A V Mohta

JUDGMENT
Anoop V. Mohta, J.
1. The petitioners have invoked Part II and specially Section 45 to 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short, "Arbitration Act-1996) to enforce the foreign award dated 29th August, 2005 and 9th October, 2006 made and published in Singapore.
The facts are:
2. The respondents, some time in February, 2004, entered into negotiations with the petitioners through broker for the purposes of chartering a vessel for carriage of cargo in several shipments from ports in Indonesia to ports in India.

Print Page

Private property on public street

Private property on public street would form part of public street. Muncipal committee to remove unauthorised consctruction made on said private property on public street. Encroacher is not entitled to get damages.

Supreme Court of India

Municipal Committee, Karnal vs Nirmala Devi on 24 November, 1995

Equivalent citations: 1996 AIR 892, 1996 SCC (1) 623

Bench: Ramaswamy, K.

PETITIONER:
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, KARNAL
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
NIRMALA DEVI
DATE OF JUDGMENT24/11/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 892 1996 SCC (1) 623 JT 1995 (9) 576 1995 SCALE (7)183
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
An area admeasuring 4 ft. x 6-1/2 ft. situated in Chaura Bazar near Rai Saheb Jogiwara, Karnal is claimed to belong to the respondent. The appellant asserted it to be part of public street. They found that the respondent had constructed a shop on the said portion of public street. Consequently, they issued a notice, after inspection, for demolition of the shop. Since the respondent did not demolish the shop, the appellant got the construction demolished necessitating the respondent to file the suit for damages. The Trial Court dismissed the suit by decree dated November 15, 1990. On appeal, the Additional District Judge by judgment and decree dated October 29, 1993 reversed the decree of the Trial Court and granted damages for a sum of Rs.20,000/-. The High Court in Second Appeal No.173/94 by order dated January 24, 1994 dismissed the appeal as usual in limine, which in recent past is getting changed by giving reasons which one hopes shall become a rule. Thus this appeal by special leave.

Print Page

Permanent alimony Under Hindu Marriage Act

It is fundamental principle of law that in order to claim a relief from the Court of law, there must be a legal right based on a legal status. When the status of a woman as "wife" is not recognized by provisions of the Act, which confers the right for permanent alimony, she cannot be entertained for grant of relief in the absence of recognition of her status by the Act.

Bombay High Court

Bhausaheb @ Sandu S/O Raghuji ... vs Leelabai W/O Bhausaheb Magar on 7 July, 2003

Equivalent citations: AIR 2004 Bom 283, II (2004) DMC 321, 2003 (4) MhLj 1019

Author: N V Dabholkar

Bench: N Dabholkar, A Naik, N Patil

JUDGMENT
N. V. Dabholkar, J.
1. While considering Family Court Appeal No. 12/2003, Bhausaheb v. Leelabai, a Division Bench of this High Court (Coram : B. H. Marlapalle and V. G. Munshi, JJ), felt satisfied that issue raised by the appellant - husband requires consideration by a larger bench of this Court. Hence, after passing an elaborate order on 17-2-2003, the Division Bench directed the Additional Registrar (Judicial) to place the matter before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders, under Rule 7 of Chapter I of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, for a reference to a larger bench. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice, on the matter being placed before his Lordship, was pleased to constitute a full bench and that is how the present reference was heard and is being disposed of by this full bench.
2. Brief factual matrix of the litigation should be stated herein so as to appreciate how the point of controversy under reference arose and was referred.

Print Page