Tagged “burden-of-proof”

7 articles on burden-of-proof.

Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad v. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad: the oppression standard in a family company

The Supreme Court's fullest modern restatement of the law of oppression — reaffirming that relief requires a continuous, deliberate course of unfair conduct, not isolated acts, in a dispute over the Baroda royal family's companies.

Valkya Editorial·14 Jun 2026·8 min

Landmark JudgmentSupreme Court of India

Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer: the limits of Section 106

Vivian Bose J.'s 1956 judgment is the perennial answer to prosecutorial over-reliance on Section 106 — it does not relieve the State of its primary burden of proving guilt, and 'especially' means exceptionally within the accused's knowledge.

Valkya Editorial·14 Jun 2026·6 min

Landmark JudgmentNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Fortis Hospital: the claimant's burden of proof in medical negligence

NCDRC set aside a ₹15 lakh award against Fortis Hospital: a medical-negligence claimant must prove breach, injury and causation; a bad result is not negligence.

Valkya Editorial·1 Jun 2026·8 min

Landmark JudgmentSupreme Court of India

Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh: the foundational test for circumstantial evidence

In September 1952 the young Supreme Court laid down the foundational rule that circumstantial evidence must form a chain excluding every hypothesis but guilt.

Valkya Editorial·1 Jun 2026·7 min

Landmark JudgmentSupreme Court of India

Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh: the four tests of circumstantial evidence

In October 1989 the Supreme Court gave its compact four-test restatement of the circumstantial-evidence standard, the working companion to the Sharad Sarda panchsheel.

Valkya Editorial·1 Jun 2026·8 min

Landmark JudgmentSupreme Court of India

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra: the panchsheel of circumstantial evidence

In July 1984 a three-judge bench crystallised the five golden principles, the panchsheel, governing convictions resting wholly on circumstantial evidence.

Valkya Editorial·1 Jun 2026·8 min

Landmark JudgmentSupreme Court of India

Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra: "may be" guilty is not "must be" guilty

In August 1973 Krishna Iyer, J. held that an accused must be guilty, not merely may be, while cautioning courts against acquittal on fanciful doubts.

Valkya Editorial·1 Jun 2026·7 min