<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2008 (2) TMI 966 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309566</link>
    <description>Sections 137 and 138 of the Indian Evidence Act confine cross-examination to an adverse party. Where the petitioner&#039;s pleadings supported the witness&#039;s case and no conflicting interest was shown, the witness could not be treated as adverse to the petitioner. On those facts, no right to cross-examine P.W.1 arose in the petitioner&#039;s favour, and the refusal to permit cross-examination was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Sep 2023 10:59:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=725626" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (2) TMI 966 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309566</link>
      <description>Sections 137 and 138 of the Indian Evidence Act confine cross-examination to an adverse party. Where the petitioner&#039;s pleadings supported the witness&#039;s case and no conflicting interest was shown, the witness could not be treated as adverse to the petitioner. On those facts, no right to cross-examine P.W.1 arose in the petitioner&#039;s favour, and the refusal to permit cross-examination was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309566</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>