Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Adhiniyam consists of 170 sections as opposed to the 167 sections in the previous Indian Evidence Act. Of these 167 sections, 23 sections have been modified, five removed, and one more section added. [7] [8] [9] [10]
The Indian Evidence Act, [1] originally passed in India by the Imperial Legislative Council in 1872, during the British Raj, contains a set of rules and allied issues governing admissibility of evidence in the Indian courts of law. The India Evidence Act was replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam [2] on 1st July 2024.
The main question which arose was whether the rules of evidence in Indian banking would be governed by British legislation, as India was then a British colony. As a result, it was decide to adapt and adopt the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1879 of the British Parliament to Indian banking. The Indian Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 was ...
Evidence Act (with its variations) is a stock short title used for legislation in Australia, India, Malaysia and the United Kingdom relating to evidence. The Bill for an Act with this short title will have been known as a Evidence Bill during its passage through Parliament .
Bankers Books Evidence Act 1891 18 Bengal Military Police Act 1892 5 Madras City Civil Court Act 1892 7 Partition Act 1893 4 Sir Dinshaw Maneckjee Petit Act 1893 6 Prisons Act 1894 9 Epidemic Disease Act 1897 3 General Clauses Act 1897 10 Live-stock Importation Act 1898 9 Central Provinces Tenancy Act 1898 11 Indian Stamp Act: 1899 2
For more general discussion of Indian legal topics, see Category:Law of India and its other subcategories. Subcategories This category has only the following subcategory.
Strict rules of evidence is a term sometimes used in and about Anglophone common law.The term is not always seen as belonging to technical legal terminology; legislation seldom if ever names a set of laws with the term "strict rules of evidence"; and the term's precise application varies from one legal context to another.
[8] In this sense, the commentary is similar to a digest (nibandha) in that it attempts to draw into the commentary outside opinions about the same passages of the text which he is commenting on. Although he is commenting on the Yājñavalkya Smṛti , he cites numerous earlier commentators as well, including Viśvarūpa, [ 9 ] Mēdhātithi ...