Skip to content


Kopasan Vs. Shamu and Three ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR7Mad440
AppellantKopasan
RespondentShamu and Three ors.
Cases ReferredMarine Investment Company v. Hariside L.R.
Excerpt:
stamp - secondary evidence of a document. - 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.
Judgment:

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.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //