| COURT: | Supreme Court |
| CORAM: | Rohinton Fali Nariman J., Vineet Saran J |
| SECTION(S): | CPC |
| GENRE: | Other Laws |
| CATCH WORDS: | concession, estoppel |
| COUNSEL: | Sudhir Chandra |
| DATE: | February 20, 2019 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | June 22, 2019 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | - |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
| Entire law explained on (i) whether a litigant is bound by concessions of fact and law made by his Counsel/ Authorized representative during the hearing, (ii) tests to find out whether contract labourers are direct employees or not, (iii) meaning of "control and supervision", (iv) meaning of "master-servant" relationship & (v) when the findings in a judgement can be said to be "perverse" and such that no reasonable person could possibly arrive at | |
There can be no doubt that admission of a party is a relevant material. But can the statement made by the learned counsel of a party across the Bar be treated as admission of the party? Having regard to the requirements of Section 18 of the Evidence Act, on the facts of this case, in our view, the aforementioned statement of the counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted as an admission so as to bind the respondent. Equally, where a question is a mixed question of fact and law, a concession made by a lawyer or his authorised representative at the stage of arguments cannot preclude the party for whom such person appears from re-agitating the point in appeal
Recent Comments