Documents relied upon in a respondent's complaint and relevant to whether property attachment should continue during the complaint's pendency must be taken on record in the related appeals. The refusal to admit those documents was set aside, and documents already filed were treated as part of the record. Costs imposed for delayed applications to file documents remained payable because the appellants had the documents in their knowledge and possession but sought to place them on record only when the appeals were listed for final hearing.

Retention of seized jewellery under PMLA was sustained because interlinked accounts, fund movements and jewellery payments supplied a prima facie nexus with proceeds of crime. The inquiry may cover property held by a person not accused of the scheduled offence where the property is connected with, or requires examination regarding, such proceeds. Recovery from a joint family residence and lack of transaction-wise tracing for individual items did not negate the nexus. Defective initial service of notice did not invalidate adjudication because participation and opportunity to defend caused no identified prejudice.

Excise liability for modifications to fully built motor vehicles depends on whether refining or remaking amounts to manufacture and, where a Chapter Note is invoked, whether a body was built on the chassis as received. These foundational questions require fresh determination before excisability and chassis-based exemption can be resolved. Extended limitation requires a positive, deliberate suppression or misstatement intended to evade duty; registration, returns, departmental scrutiny and a bona fide exemption belief do not establish that standard merely because the departmental view later changes. Any duty determined is confined to the normal limitation period. Penalties for the manufacturer and its Executive Director require the same fraud or intentional-evasion conditions and therefore do not arise absent such conduct.

Oral agreements between companies remain governed by general contract law where no statutory provision requires corporate contracts to be written. The repealed requirement for written corporate contracts was neither saved nor re-enacted under the Companies Act, 2013, and the provision governing signature authority for company documents does not prohibit oral agreements. A pleaded assertion that a company representative was authorised to enter an agreement requires evidentiary adjudication; a plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold merely for lack of a written authority letter.

The Schedule to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which listed enactments repealed by that Act, was itself repealed by section 2 and the Schedule to the Repealing Act, 1938. It consequently ceased to operate as the statutory list of repealed Indian enactments in the statutory framework of Indian law.

Improper admission or rejection of evidence does not, by itself, justify a new trial or reversal. The deciding court must determine whether independent evidence sufficiently supports the decision or whether the excluded evidence, if received, would not have altered it. Evidentiary error that is non-prejudicial to the decision does not require a new trial or reversal.

Jury and assessor questioning in trials is permitted only through, or with leave of, the judge. Questions may be addressed to witnesses only where they are of the kind the judge could himself ask and are considered proper by the judge. The mechanism preserves judicial control over the examination of witnesses while allowing juries or assessors to seek clarification relevant to the evidence.

Section 165 empowers the Judge to question witnesses or parties at any stage and order production of documents or things to obtain proper proof. Parties cannot object to such questioning or orders and require the Court's permission to cross-examine on answers elicited. The power is limited by the requirement that judgment rest on legally relevant and duly proved facts, preservation of witness protections against compelled disclosure, restrictions on improper questions, and the continued requirement of primary documentary evidence except where legally permitted.

Refusal to produce a document after receiving notice to produce prevents the refusing party from subsequently relying on that document as evidence. Later evidentiary use is permissible only with the other party's consent or by order of the Court. Where production is refused and secondary evidence is given, the original cannot later be tendered to contradict that evidence or establish that the agreement was unstamped.

Where a party calls for a document after giving notice to the other party to produce it, and then inspects the document after production, that party is bound to tender it as evidence if the producing party so requires. The obligation depends upon the document being produced pursuant to notice and inspected by the party that called for it.

A witness summoned to produce a document must bring it before the Court if it is in the witness's possession or power, despite objections to production or admissibility. The Court decides such objections and may inspect the document or receive other evidence to determine admissibility, except where the document concerns matters of State. Where translation is necessary, secrecy may be directed unless the document is to be given in evidence.

Section 161 requires production and inspection, on the adverse party's request, of any writing used by a witness under the preceding memory-refreshing provisions. The adverse party may cross-examine the witness concerning that writing. Application of this right to police diaries is governed in connection with the separate provision addressing such diaries.

Section 160 permits a witness to testify to facts recorded in a document of the kind contemplated by section 159 despite lacking specific recollection, provided the witness is sure that the facts were correctly recorded. A book-keeper may therefore testify to transactions entered in regularly maintained business books after forgetting particular transactions, if the book-keeper knows that the books were correctly kept.

During examination, a witness may refresh memory using a writing made at the time of the relevant transaction or shortly afterwards, if the Court considers the matter then fresh in memory. A writing made by another person may be used if read within that timeframe and known to be correct. The Court may permit a copy where sufficient reason exists for non-production of the original, while expert witnesses may consult professional treatises.

Export Declaration Form compliance is generally required from 1 October 2026 for exports of goods and services. At electronic data interchange ports, a Shipping Bill serves as the goods export declaration. Service exporters generally file EDF within 30 days after the invoice month ends and may use a consolidated monthly EDF. Software exports move from the separate SOFTEX process into the EDF framework, subject to applicable exemptions and special provisions.

Proved statements relevant under sections 32 or 33 may be tested by evidence that would have been admissible had the maker appeared as a witness and denied the suggested matter in cross-examination. The evidence may contradict or corroborate the statement, or impeach or confirm the maker's credit, as with live testimony.

Corroboration of witness testimony permits proof of a witness's former statement concerning the same fact when made at or about the time of the occurrence, or before an authority legally competent to investigate that fact. The earlier statement may be proved in evidence to support the witness's later testimony, and its corroborative use requires both statements to relate to the same fact.

Section 156 permits questions to a witness intended to be corroborated about circumstances observed at or near the time or place of a relevant fact, where proof of those circumstances would support the witness's testimony. Independent evidence of collateral incidents connected by time or place may corroborate an accomplice's account of a robbery, including incidents occurring while travelling to or from the location.

Section 155 permits impeachment of a witness's credit by the adverse party, or by the calling party with the Court's consent. Permitted methods include reputation evidence from persons acquainted with the witness, proof of bribery or other corrupt inducement, and proof of former inconsistent statements concerning evidence liable to contradiction. Reasons for a credibility witness's belief may be elicited only in cross-examination, and the resulting answers cannot be contradicted, though false answers may support a charge of giving false evidence.

Section 154 permits the person who calls a witness, subject to the Court's discretion, to ask questions that could be put by the adverse party in cross-examination. Permission is discretionary. Reliance on any part of the witness's evidence remains available despite permission to conduct such questioning under sub-section (1).