Legal Reference Library

In Sirangai Shoba @ Shoba Munnuri rep.by her General Power of Attorney, M.Narayana   Rao  Vs Sirangi Muralidhar Rao, rep. by his Power of Attorney Smt. Sirangi Vijayalakshmi. the Hon'ble Andhra HC uphold a trial court order allowing witness examination on Skype for recording evidence in a divorce petition, the High Court of Hyderabad has held that examination of witnesses and recording of evidence by commissioner contemplated by Order XVIII Rule 4 C.P.C from the words ‘witness in attendance’ are to be understood as person being present and it need not be physical presence. The court held that recording of evidence through audio, video link or through internet by Skype or similar technological device is permissible and complying with the words ‘in attendance’. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/andhra-hc-approves-witness-examination-skype/

The Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in The National Insurance Comp Ltd. Nawal Kishore Road Lko vs. Pushpa Devi, has held that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) has the discretion to permit examination-in-chief, but cross-examination and re-examination were not permissible on affidavit. The Bench headed by Chief Justice Dilip B Bhosale held that defendants can raise objection to examination-in-chief in affidavit and in the absence of any objection before the tribunal in this regard, no challenge to its award would be permissible in an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the high court. “The examination-in-chief on affidavit in the proceedings before the Tribunal advances the object for which it has been constituted, by cutting down on the time and energy which would otherwise have to be spent on an examination-in-chief without, in any manner, taking away the sanctity attached to it,” the Bench observed. The court also added that the U.P. Mot...

Justice V. Chitambaresh of Kerala High Court has on Thursday(31/03/16) held that the practice of insisting a student to undertake the entire examinations for a mere failure in a single theory / practical exam is unreasonable and arbitrary. The Judgment[(Dr Geethu.S and another v Kerala University of Health Sciences and others) was delivered in a petition filed by two students along with some other connected W.P(c)’s which had been filed alleging inconsistency between the regulations fixed by Kerala University of Health Sciences(KUHS) and Medical Council of India(MCI).The petitioners were not declared successful in the Post-graduate Medical course for the reason that they had failed to secure the minimum marks in one of the four theory papers or in one of the clinical/practical tests. They further challenged the condition in the KUHS regulations ,which insisted that to secure a pass ,they had to undertake the entire examinations including the whole subjects/theory once again. The challe...