Posted On by &filed under High Court, Madras High Court.

Madras High Court
Kopasan vs Shamu And Three Ors. on 25 April, 1884
Equivalent citations: (1883) ILR 7 Mad 440
Bench: C A Turner, Kt., Brandt


Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Brandt, J.

1. The alleged document, if it were in existence and produced, could not be received in evidence except on payment of a penalty, but it cannot be produced, and there is no provision for levying a penalty. Secondary evidence of the contents of the document cannot, therefore, be admitted–Marine Investment Company v. Hariside L.R. 5 H.L. 624.

2. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 0.311 seconds.