Filing deadlines for electronic PGIRP-1 to PGIRP-6 forms monitoring insolvency resolution processes of personal guarantors to corporate debtors are extended until 31 December 2026. The extension applies to all applicable forms required through the e-platform. Penalties for delayed submission or modification of these forms will be levied only after 31 December 2026, allowing additional time for compliance during the transition.

Primary evidence consists of the document itself produced for the court's inspection. Each part of a document executed in several parts is primary evidence, and each executed counterpart is primary evidence against its executing parties. Documents produced through one uniform process, such as printing, lithography or photography, are primary evidence of each other's contents. Copies made from a common original, however, are not primary evidence of that original's contents.

Proof of the contents of documents may be established by either primary evidence or secondary evidence. Both forms are recognised as permissible evidentiary means for demonstrating what a document contains. Documentary contents may therefore be proved through primary evidence, or alternatively through secondary evidence, for use in legal proceedings.

Direct oral evidence must be given by a witness with firsthand knowledge of the fact asserted. Facts capable of being seen, heard, or otherwise perceived must be proved by the person who directly perceived them, while opinion evidence must come from the person holding that opinion. Expert treatises may prove expert opinions in specified circumstances of the author's unavailability. The court may require a material object, other than a document, to be produced for inspection.

Proof of facts may be established through oral evidence, subject to the exclusion of the contents of documents or electronic records. Oral testimony is available to prove facts generally, but it does not serve as the mode for proving documentary or electronic-record contents.

Section 58 removes the requirement to prove facts admitted by parties or their agents at the hearing, admitted before the hearing through signed writing, or deemed admitted under applicable pleading rules. The court may nevertheless require independent proof of an admitted fact.

Judicial notice under Section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 removes the need to prove specified matters and obliges the Court to recognise them. Mandatory categories include laws in force in India, specified public legislation, military Articles of War, legislative proceedings, official seals, gazette-notified public office holders, recognised States and Sovereigns, notified public observances, territories, hostilities, court personnel, and the rule of the road. Reference books or documents may be consulted, and a person seeking judicial notice may be required to produce necessary material.

Judicial notice under section 56 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, removes the requirement of proof for any fact of which the Court will take judicial notice. Such facts are categorised as facts not requiring proof, so parties need not adduce evidence to establish them before the Court in a proceeding.

A counterclaim operates as a cross-suit, and its adjudication conclusively determines rights independent of the original suit. Dismissal of the plaintiff's suit and a decree on the defendant's counterclaim constitute distinct decrees even where they arise from a common judgment or formal decree. Each adjudication requires a separate appeal. Failure to independently challenge either determination permits it to attain finality and may trigger res judicata; consequently, a single composite appeal is not maintainable.

Character affecting damages is relevant in civil cases where a person's character bears upon the amount of damages that person ought to receive. Character includes reputation and disposition, but proof is confined to general reputation and general disposition rather than particular acts used to establish them.

Previous bad character of an accused is generally irrelevant in criminal proceedings, but becomes relevant where evidence of good character has been given in reply. The exclusion does not apply if a person's bad character is itself a fact in issue, and a previous conviction is relevant as evidence of bad character.

Consent in specified sexual-offence prosecutions cannot be assessed by reference to the victim's character or previous sexual experience. Where consent or the quality of consent is in issue in prosecutions for listed Indian Penal Code offences or attempts, such evidence is legally irrelevant.

Previous good character of a person accused in criminal proceedings is recognised as a relevant fact. The relevance applies to the accused person's good character in a criminal case, permitting that character circumstance to be considered among facts relevant to issues arising in proceedings under the evidentiary framework governing criminal matters.

Character evidence in civil cases is irrelevant when tendered solely to show that a person was likely or unlikely to have engaged in conduct imputed to that person. Such character may be considered only to the extent that it emerges from facts independently relevant to the issues. The rule prevents character from serving as standalone proof of alleged conduct.

Where the opinion of a living person is relevant, the grounds on which that opinion rests are also relevant. This permits proof of the factual, technical, or experiential basis used to form an admissible opinion, enabling assessment of its reliability and evidentiary value. An expert may describe experiments performed for the purpose of forming the expert opinion.

Relationship opinion expressed through conduct by a family member or another person with special means of knowledge is relevant when the Court must determine the relationship. Treatment of persons as spouses or of a person as a legitimate child may be relevant. Such opinion alone cannot prove marriage in proceedings under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, or specified Indian Penal Code prosecutions.

Section 49 makes opinions of persons possessing special means of knowledge relevant where a court must determine the usages or tenets of a body of persons or family, the constitution or governance of a religious or charitable foundation, or the meaning of words and terms used in particular districts or by particular classes.

Section 48 treats as relevant the opinions of persons likely to know whether a general custom or right exists when that issue requires determination. A general custom or right includes one common to a considerable class of persons, including villagers' right to use water from a particular village well.

Section 47A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes the opinion of the Certifying Authority that issued an Electronic Signature Certificate a relevant fact where a court must form an opinion on a person's electronic signature. The relevance applies only to the opinion of the Certifying Authority issuing the relevant Electronic Signature Certificate and where judicial assessment of a person's electronic signature is required.

Opinion evidence from a person acquainted with another's handwriting is a relevant fact when authorship of a document or signature is in issue. Acquaintance may be established by seeing the person write, receiving purported replies to authorised communications, or habitually receiving purportedly written documents in the ordinary course of business. Personal observation of the alleged writer is not essential where familiarity is acquired through regular correspondence or business dealings.