A.S.Rajarajan, v. Visteon Technical and Services Centre Pvt. Ltd, Rep.by its M.D.
Madras HCA/1186/2019
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
of 2019 in C.S.No.348 of 2013 PUSHPA…
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
¶1
1
¶2
A.Nos.1186 & 1187 of 2019 in C.S.No.348 of 2013
¶3
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
¶4
These two applications have been filed by the applicant/plaintiff to produce the additional documents enlisted in the schedule to the Judges summons and to file an additional proof affidavit.
¶5
- The learned counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently contested that excepting Document Nos.15 and 16 enlisted in the schedule to the Judges Summons, he seriously objecting to the marking of other documents though they are only E-mails. The learned counsel contended that these documents are relating to the alleged sexual harassment and the documents cannot be marked without obtaining the procedure prescribed for the same.
¶6
- Considering the submissions made on either side and also going through the averments made in the affidavit, this Court is inclined to allow the application but however the documents sought to be marked as additional evidence can be marked subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility at the time of evidence. This Court may follow the procedures as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2001-3-SCC-1 (Bipin Shantilall Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat and another) while dealing with the question of admissibility of
¶8
2
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court