- Case number
- CMA(TM) No.1 of 2024
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Outcome
- Allowed
Headnote
Opposition declared abandoned on the Registry's assertion that it had emailed the counter statement, set aside. The Registry invoked the presumption under the illustration to section 114 of the Evidence Act that official acts are done promptly and correctly, which would have left the opponent to prove a negative it could not establish. The Court held that beyond a self-saving statement something more was required of the Registry, and that where substantial rights are at stake the benefit of the doubt should go to the parties rather than the statutory authority. It reminded the Registry that it is a statutory functionary which must show the utmost sensitivity to the rights of parties before it rather than a hyper-technical disciplinarian attitude, and asked how, if it is keen to go by the Rules, it explains almost a year's delay in forwarding the counter statement: he who enforces discipline must also show some degree of respect for discipline at his own level.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.