https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465314 An isolated bahi entry could not by itself sustain a recovery claim where the plaintiff failed to prove that the books of account were regularly kept in the course of business. The alleged loan entry remained unsupported because no principal witness from the firm entered the witness box and the attesting witness did not support the case. Applying Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, the court reiterated that account entries are relevant only when the underlying books are shown to be regularly maintained, and they are not sufficient on their own to fasten liability. No jurisdictional error or patent illegality was found in the first appellate court's reversal of the trial court decree. en-us Tue, 14 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Dec 2025 13:17:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465314 An isolated bahi entry could not by itself sustain a recovery claim where the plaintiff failed to prove that the books of account were regularly kept in the course of business. The alleged loan entry remained unsupported because no principal witness from the firm entered the witness box and the attesting witness did not support the case. Applying Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, the court reiterated that account entries are relevant only when the underlying books are shown to be regularly maintained, and they are not sufficient on their own to fasten liability. No jurisdictional error or patent illegality was found in the first appellate court's reversal of the trial court decree. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 14 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465314