Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
SC held that under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC and Section 165 of Evidence Act, the power to recall a witness is exclusively within the court's discretion. The court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC to permit a party to recall a witness if circumstances warrant, but such recall is not an automatic right. Cross-examination of a recalled witness requires explicit court permission. The court's primary objective is to discover or obtain proper proof of relevant facts. The Special Leave Petitions were consequently dismissed, affirming the court's broad discretionary power in witness examination.
SC held that under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC and Section 165 of Evidence Act, the power to recall a witness is exclusively within the court's discretion. The court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC to permit a party to recall a witness if circumstances warrant, but such recall is not an automatic right. Cross-examination of a recalled witness requires explicit court permission. The court's primary objective is to discover or obtain proper proof of relevant facts. The Special Leave Petitions were consequently dismissed, affirming the court's broad discretionary power in witness examination.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.