Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 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]
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 .
Improvements in Town Act 1850 26 Indian Tolls Act 1851 8 Madras City Land Revenue Act 1851 12 Bombay Rent-free Estates Act 1852 11 Extending Certain Act 1852 14 Rent Recovery Act 1853 6 Shore Nuisances (Bombay and Kolaba) Act 1853 11 Bengal Bonded Warehouse Association Act 1854 5 Police Agra 1854 16 Legal Representative's Suits Act 1855 12
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 ...
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 ...