- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Kopasan v. Shamu And Three Ors.
Madras High Court
Apr 25, 1884
Important Paras
Please sign up to view Important Paras.
and Brandt, J.
1. The alleged document, if it were in existence and produced, could not be received in evidence except on payment of a penalty, but it cannot be produced, and there is no provision for levying a penalty. Secondary evidence of the contents of the document cannot, therefore, be admitted--Marine Investment Company v. Hariside L.R. 5 H.L. 624.
2. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
x
Alert
Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature.