Indian Evidence Act , 1872 .

S. 92 : Documents- construction- Interpretation of document – A document must primarily be construed on the basis of the terms and conditions contained therein- It is also trite that while construing a document the court shall not apply any words which the author thereof did not use. [S.91 ,Indian Contract Act ,1872, S. 124 ]

Indian Succession Act, 1925
S.63:Requirement of a valid will – The attesting witness should speak not only about the testators signature or affixing his mark to the will but also that each of the witnesses had signed the will in the presence of the testator.

Indian Evidence Act 1872.

S.34: Books of Accounts – Entries in Loose papers – Incriminating materials seized in raids conducted on industries – Not maintained in the regular course of business – Not Admissible [Criminal Procedure Code (2 of 1974), S. 156 Income -tax Act 1961 S. 2(13) ].

Indian Evidence Act 1872.

S.56: Evidence – Subsequent Events during litigation – Having direct bearing on the issue can be considered by the Court even if it is produced for the first time. [ Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 ,S. 36 ]

S.91: Agreement of sale fixing a specific amount as price-On money- Builders- A mere suspicion on the builders that they accepted sale amount in cash could not be accepted. [ S.92 ]

Constitution of India

362 : Corona Virus Lockdown Crisis – Extension of interim orders – Expiring before 30 -04 -2020 – Shall continue to operate till then – Interim orders which are not granted for limited duration are to operate till further orders shall remain unaffected by this order .[ Art . 226, 227 ]

Appeal – Supreme Court -Condonation of delay- The special leave petition has been filed after a delay of 387 days with further delay of 302 days in refiling- This is one more case which we have defined as “Certificate Cases” – Administration directed to hold an inquiry into the aspect as to who is responsible for such inordinate delay and take suitable action against the officers concerned [ .Limitation Act ,1963, S.5 ]

S. 22 : Professional or other misconduct–Decision of Director discipline of ICAI to not to entertain complaint and decision of board of discipline of ICAI to concur with director discipline’s opinion could not be faulted-Petition was dismissed with cost of Rs. 1 lakh was directed to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee with in a period of two weeks.

Limitation Act , 1963 .
S.5 : Extension of prescribed in certain cases – Condonation of delay- 916 days- A liberal approach is to be taken in the matter of condonation of delay – The consideration for condonation of delay would not depend on the status of the party , namely the Government or the pubic bodies – Condonation of delay is not automatic- No proper explanation was filed for condonation of delay – Condonation of delay was dismissed . [Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXI of the Code Art. 226 ]