Admission is a statement, whether oral, documentary, or contained in electronic form, that suggests an inference regarding a fact in issue or a relevant fact. Its character depends on its inferential connection to such facts and on its having been made by persons, and in circumstances, identified for that purpose. Electronic-form statements are included alongside oral and documentary statements.

Course-of-business evidence is relevant where the performance of a particular act is in issue. For correspondence, placement of a letter at the customary collection point, combined with the established practice of taking such letters to post, bears on dispatch. Due posting and absence of return through the Dead Letter Office also bear on whether the letter reached its addressee.

Section 15 makes a series of similar occurrences relevant where the issue is whether a disputed act was accidental or intentional, or was done with particular knowledge or intention. The occurrences must involve the person who performed the act and may support an inference concerning the character, purpose, or state of mind associated with the act in question.

Parallel insolvency proceedings against a principal borrower and its corporate guarantor raise the maintainability of commencing CIRP when CIRP against the guarantor is already pending. The issue concerns the scope of Section 60(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, together with the application of binding precedent and the per incuriam principle. Admission was refused and the civil appeal was dismissed.

Section 14 treats facts evidencing intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, ill-will, or relevant bodily condition as relevant only when linked to the particular matter in issue. Specific possession, prior acts, communications, complaints, and contemporaneous statements may show knowledge, intent, notice, good faith, feeling, or physical condition. General habits or dispositions, including habitual negligence or a general tendency to commit similar crimes, remain irrelevant without that particular connection.

Where a right or custom is in issue, relevant facts include transactions that created, claimed, modified, recognised, asserted, denied or contradicted its existence. Particular instances in which the right or custom was claimed, recognised or exercised, or its exercise was disputed, asserted or departed from, are also relevant. For a fishery right, this may include ancestral grants, mortgages, inconsistent later grants, prior exercise, and interference by neighbours.

Relevance of evidence in a suit claiming damages extends to any fact capable of assisting the court in determining the amount that ought to be awarded. The fact must tend to enable assessment of the appropriate quantum of damages and is relevant for the limited purpose of quantifying the damages claim.

Facts not otherwise relevant become relevant where they are inconsistent with a fact in issue or relevant fact, or make the existence or non-existence of such fact highly probable or improbable. This includes facts showing that an accused was elsewhere, or sufficiently distant, when an offence was committed, and facts excluding other specified persons where the offence could only have been committed by one of them.

Statements, acts and writings of any conspirator may be relevant against each alleged participant where reasonable grounds indicate a conspiracy to commit an offence or actionable wrong. The material must concern the common intention and arise after it was first entertained by a conspirator. It may prove both the conspiracy's existence and a person's participation, notwithstanding ignorance of particular acts or communications.

Section 9 treats as relevant facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, support or rebut an inference, establish identity, fix time or place, or show parties' relationship to a transaction. Relevance extends only to the extent necessary for those purposes. Facts explaining conduct or a transaction may be relevant where they illuminate a fact in issue or relevant fact, while collateral particulars remain excluded unless needed to establish the explanatory connection.

Section 8 makes motive, preparation, and prior or subsequent conduct relevant where they relate to, influence, or are influenced by facts in issue or relevant facts. Conduct excludes standalone statements, but statements accompanying and explaining acts, or affecting relevant conduct when made to or in the presence of the person concerned, may be relevant. Relevant conduct may include evidence fabrication or concealment, witness influence, absconding, possession of crime-linked property, and prompt complaints concerning specified offences.

Extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot be used to challenge a GST assessment where the statutory appeal was not filed within the prescribed limitation or the further condonable period. Pandemic-related limitation protection and the special procedure permitting delayed appeals against specified assessment orders did not assist where neither route was used. In the absence of exceptional grounds such as breach of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or abuse of process, failure to pursue appellate remedies precludes writ intervention.

Facts are relevant when they are the occasion, cause, effect, surrounding state of affairs, or opportunity for facts in issue or other relevant facts. This includes a victim's prior possession and disclosure of money in an alleged robbery, signs of a struggle near an alleged murder, and the victim's prior health or habits known to the person alleged to have administered poison where those habits afforded an opportunity for poisoning.

Section 6 establishes the same-transaction rule of relevancy: facts not independently in issue are relevant when sufficiently connected with a fact in issue to constitute part of one transaction. Connection may exist despite differences in time or place. The rule covers contemporaneous or closely connected words and conduct, events within a wider occurrence, related correspondence, and successive deliveries through intermediaries, where each fact bears a factual connection to the transaction under inquiry.

Section 5 confines admissible evidence to facts in issue and other facts declared relevant, excluding matters outside those categories. Its scope is subject to applicable civil-procedure restrictions, and it does not permit proof of facts barred by those requirements. A party that fails to produce a bond at the first hearing may subsequently produce or prove its contents only in accordance with prescribed civil-procedure conditions.

Section 4 establishes three evidentiary effects: may presume permits the Court either to treat a fact as proved unless disproved or to require proof; shall presume requires the Court to treat a fact as proved unless disproved; and conclusive proof requires proof of one fact to establish another while excluding evidence to disprove it.

Section 3 defines fact as perceptible matters, states or relations and conscious mental conditions, and treats facts as relevant where connected through prescribed modes of relevancy. Facts in issue are those necessarily determining a claimed or denied right, liability or disability. Documents include recorded matter on any substance, while evidence comprises witness statements and documents, including electronic records. Proof or disproof requires judicial belief or probability sufficient for a prudent person to act on existence or non-existence; neither state results in a fact being not proved.

Parts IX and IX-A of the Constitution do not impliedly repeal or displace the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, because a specialised development authority is distinct from a Municipality and retains power to undertake planned development and incidental acquisition. The Act's self-contained acquisition procedure is not overridden by the general Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Planned housing development constitutes a public purpose, and authorised survey powers and governmental sanction remain valid where affected persons receive notice and an opportunity to object. Promissory estoppel protects land covered by enforceable governmental development assurances, while disputed claims require individual determination. Wholesale invalidation based on alleged arbitrariness or discrimination is impermissible without individual proof of comparable treatment.

External Development Charges paid to the Directorate of Town and Country Planning through Haryana Urban Development Authority, acting solely as the State Government's executing agency, constitute payments to Government for external development works. Such payments do not attract tax deduction at source under Chapter XVII-B. Consequently, non-deduction does not make the payer an assessee in default, and a tax demand with consequential interest is not justified.

Section 2 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, positioned in the preliminary portion under the subject of repeal of enactments, was repealed by section 2 and the Schedule to the Repealing Act, 1938. It is therefore identified as a repealed statutory provision, and its stated subject of repeal of enactments no longer operates as a provision within the legislative framework of that Act.