Definition of Law-

"Indian law is described as the body of jurisprudence created by treaties, statutes,

executive orders, court decisions and administrative action defining and implementing
the relationship among the United States, Indian tribes and individuals, and the states."

Classification of Law-

Law of India refers to the system of law in modern India. maintains a common law legal
system inherited from the colonial era and various legislations first introduced by the
British are still in effect in modified forms today. During the drafting of the Indian
Constitution Indian laws also adhere to the United Nations guidelines on human rights
law and the environmental law. Certain international trade laws, such as those
on intellectual property, are also enforced in India.

Indian family law is fairly complex, with each religion adhering to its own specific laws.
In most states, registering of marriages and divorces is not compulsory. Separate laws
govern Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, and followers of other religions. The
exception to this rule is in the state of Goa, where a uniform civil code is in place, in
which all religions have a common law regarding marriages, divorces, and adoption.

As of May 2010, there were about 1221 laws. [1] However, since there are Central laws
as well as State laws, it is difficult to ascertain their exact numbers as on a given date
and the best way to find the Central Laws in India is from the official website.

Contents

1]Constitutional and administrative law 2] Criminal law 3] Contract law 4] Labour law 5]
Company law 6] Tort law 7] Property law 8] Tax law ( Central Board of Direct
Taxes, Income Tax Act, Service tax) 9] Trust law 10] Family law ( Hindu Law, Muslim
law, Christian Law) 11] Nationality law

Article 226 in the Constitution of India 1949

226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers,
throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any
person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those
territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus,
mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose
(2) The power conferred by clause ( 1 ) to issue directions, orders or writs to any
Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising
jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part,
arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government
or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories

(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay
or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under
clause ( 1 ), without

(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the
plea for such interim order; and

(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High
Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the
party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High
Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on
which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so
furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that
period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open;
and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that
period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the aid next day, stand vacated

(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the
power conferred on the Supreme court by clause ( 2 ) of Article 32

Article 32 in the Constitution Of India 1949

32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the
enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and
certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights
conferred by this Part

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and
( 2 ), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits
of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under
clause ( 2 )
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise
provided for by this Constitution

CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS COURT, MUMBAI

In 1728, under a Royal Charter, the Court of Over and Terminal and Jail (Gaol) delivery,
came to be established in Bombay. The Court was composed of the Governor and
some members of his Council, who as justices of the Peace, had jurisdiction to try all
offences except high treason.

In 1798, the Recorder's Court with powers to exercise Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction,
was created. In 1824, the Recorder's Court was replaced by the Supreme Court with
jurisdiction confined to the town and island of Bombay. At about the same time, Diwani
Adalat and Sudder Fozdari Adalat were established having superior Civil and Criminal
Jurisdiction respectively over the other territories in the Presidency of Bombay. In 1861,
the Indian High Courts Act passed by the British Parliament, the Supreme Court and
Diwani and Fozdari Adalats, were abolished and on 26th June, 1862, letters patent were
issued, establishing the High Court at Bombay.

The Old Secretariat Building (In which City Civil And Sessions Court is housed) was
designed and built by architect Col.Henry St. Clair Wilkins and planner Sir Henry Bartle
Edward Frere during 1865-74 . It is described as a building in the Venetian Gothic style.
The Old Secretariat is one of the ancient structures in Mumbai located on the eastern
side of the Oval ground. Comprising of a tall tower on a central staircase . The structure
has arcaded verandahs and some fine stone carvings. It is designated as a Grade II A
heritage structure.

Each year, five Sessions trial were held in the High Court. Some very famous trials
including the Lokmanya Tilak trials were held here. The last Criminal Session of the
High Court presided over by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice, Late R. A. Jahagirdar, commenced
on 30th June, 1948 and was dissolved on 2nd July, 1948.

Simultaneously, with the enactment of the Bombay City Civil Court Act 1948 (XL of
1948), the Court of Session for Greater Bombay, came into existence. The Sessions
Court was established under the powers given to the State Government by section 9 of
the Criminal Procedure Code. The Sessions Court started functioning from 16th August
1948. The sessions Court for Greater Bombay, exercised the same powers as were
exercised by the High Court in Session trials in respect of jury verdict. These provisions
conferred on the Court of Sessions by Bombay Act 32 of 1948, were withdrawn by
Bombay Act 6 of 1952 and the Sessions Court of Greater Bombay, was brought on par
with Sessions Courts in the mofussils.
In a murder-trial, subsequently to the enactment of Act 6 of 1952, where the jury
returned a divided verdict of 5 to 4 not quality the Addln. Sessions Judge agreed with
the majority verdict of 'not guilty' and acquitted the accused. Prior to the enactment of
Act 6 of 1952, the Judge had no option but to order a retrial in case of a divided verdict.

Though the Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay was shorn of the pomp and splendor
of Sessions Trials held in the Majestic Sessions Hall of the High Court, the practice and
procedure followed by the Sessions Court was not any different from that followed in
High Court Sessions Trial. Trial by jury which was in vogue since long in the High Court
and continued till the year 1948, was thereafter continued in the Court of Sessions for
Greater Bombay.

In 1956, after the enactment of the Criminal Procedure Amendment Act, it was open to
the High Court to dispense with jury trial if the case was likely to take up a very long
time before the Sessions Court.

One of the first cases tried without jury, at the directions of the High Court, was
sometime in the beginning of 1957. The case which went on for nearly three and a half
months before the then Addl. Sessions Judge, B. J. Diwan (later chief Justice of
Gujarat),

Several important cases attracting wide media publicity, were tried in the Court of
Sessions. The Lloyds Bank Dacoity case, the Kasab Case, Telgi case, the Nadkarni
Murder Case or the Kishori Trial, the Chunawalla Murder Case and Comm. Nanavati
case, are some of the notable ones. The trial of Comm. Nanavati probably was the last
trial by jury. The Nanavati case had all the ingredients of a thriller-sex, murder, intrigue
and revenge. The case generated tremendous publicity and heat and Comm. Nanavati
received a lot of sympathy. The verdict was melodramatic. The jury's verdict 'not guilty'
was greeted with a loud roar of approval.

However, the Trial Judge declared the verdict perverse and referred the matter to the
High Court. The High Court sentenced the accused. This led to a louder roar of protest,
The Learned Trial Judge had to be taken home that night under police escort. Shortly,
thereafter, trial by jury came to be discontinued in the court of Sessions.

During the time, Criminal Cases were tried by the High Court at Bombay, the High Court
every year held five sessions. Under the Rules for the Court of Sessions framed by the
Hon'ble High Court, the Court was required to hold Sessions every year, commencing
on the dates on which the Court reopened for the X' mas holidays, the Summer
Vacation and the October Vacation. However, under the present procedure, the
Sessions courts continue to function even during the X' mas holidays, the Summer
Vacation and the October Vacation. This has become necessary in view of the large
backlog of Sessions Cases and the fact that a large number of accused persons are
kept in judicial custody pending trial. During the Vacations, the Sessions Court only try
cases where the accused are in custody.

Today the Sessions Court is not merely concerned with the trial of Criminal Cases. With
effect from 1st April 1974 ( the date on which the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973
came into force), appeals from orders of the Presidency Magistrates ( now Metropolitan
Magistrates) which lay with the High Court, now lie with the Sessions Court for Greater
Bombay, except appeals against conviction and sentence of imprisonment for a period
of 7 years and above. Initially, the Courts numbering 4 were located in the High Court
Annexe Building and in 1967, the courts were shifted to the Old Secretariat Building
where the same are presently housed. In 1972, new annexe building was constructed.
In or about the year, 1985, the major part of the Old Secretariat Building was made
available to this Court by removing the Office of Inspector General of Police. Fast track
Court was established at Sewree in 2003. Considering the increase in number of cases
from the suburbs of Mumbai, the Dindoshi branch of Bombay City Civil and Sessions
Court commenced in 2007.

The earlier pecuniary jurisdiction of City Civil Court granted was Rs.10, 000/- In 1950, it
was raised to Rs. 25,000/- , In 1977, it was raised to Rs. 50,000/-. In September 2012, it
was enhanced to Rs. 1, 00, 00,000/-.

The current territorial jurisdiction of Bombay City Civil & Sessions Court, Fort is from
Colaba to Mahim, Colaba to Mulund and Dindoshi Branch is from Bandra to Dahisar.
Cases under various special acts such as MCOCA, TADA, NDPS, CBI, SUSCA,
POCSOA, SARFESI MPID, SC/ST are tried in Bombay City Civil & Sessions Court.

Brief History of Law of Evidence in India

The word evidence is derived from the Latin word evident which means to show
clearly The Law of Evidence is based on following ,

1] No facts other than those having some connection with the matter in controversy
should be gone into by the Court..In other words, only facts having a rational probative
value should be admitted in evidence.

2] All facts having rational probative value are admissible in evidence, unless excluded
by some rule of paramount importance as for instance, a concession made by a client to
his advocate

Before Indian Evidence Act was passed, there was no systematic enactment in India on
this subject. In the Courts established in the Presidency towns of Calcutta, Bombay and
Madras the English Rules of evidence were followed.

Object behind Law of Evidence

To help the Courts to ascertain the truth and to avoid confusion in the minds of Judges.

Principles

1] Evidence must be confined to matters in the issue

2] Hearsay Evidence must not be admitted

3] The best evidence must be given in all cases.

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, classifies evidence into:

I] Oral evidence: The statement made by a witness or the testimony of a witness as to

the existence or non-existence of a fact in issue is called oral evidence. For example, A
who is the eye witness in a murder case says, I saw Mr. X killing Y. This is Oral
evidence. It is also called as direct evidence. The statement made by the witness may
amount to a direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence means
the statement made by a witness or the testimony of a witness as to other relevant
facts, from which the facts in issue may be inferred. For example A who is the witness
in a murder case says, I saw Mr. X (who was charged for killing Y) running with blood
stained knife. This is the circumstantial evidence. It is also called as indirect evidence.

II] Documentary evidence: The expressions Certifying Authority, digital signature,

Digital signature Certificate, electronic form, electronic records, information, secure
electronic record, secure digital signature and subscriber shall have the meanings
respectively assigned to them in the Information Technology Act, 2000. Documentary
evidence means all documents produced for the inspection of the court. The contents of
documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. (S.61).

Primary evidence means that the document itself is produced for the inspection of the
Court.

1. Where a document is executed in- i) several parts, - each part is primary evidence of
the documents. ii) Counterpart (each counterpart being executed by one or some of the
parties only), each counterpart is primary evidence as against the parties executing it.

2. Where a number of documents are all made by one uniform process (as in the case
of Printing lithography or photography), each is primary evidence of the contents of the
rest. Bust where they are all copies of a common original, they are not primary evidence
of the contents of the original.

Illustration: a person is shown to have been in possession of a number of placards, all

printed at one time from one original. Any one of the placards is primary evidence of the
contents of any other, but no one of them is a primary evidence of the contents of the
original.
Secondary evidence means and includes

1. Certified copies given under S 74

2. Copies made from the original, by mechanical processes, which is themselves

ensure the accuracy of the copy.

3. Copies compared from copies made from the original made by mechanical process.

4. Copies made from the original

5. Copies compared with the original.

6. Counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them.

7. Oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself
seen it. (S.63).

Illustration: A photograph of an original is secondary evidence of an original is

secondary evidence of its contents, though the two have not been compared, if it is
proved that the thing photographed was the original.

III] Burden of Proof (S. 101): Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any
legal right or liability dependent on the existence facts which he asserts, must prove that
those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said
that the burden of proof lies on that person.

Illustration: A desires a Court to give judgment that B shall be punished for a crime
which A says B has committed.

S.102: On whom Burden of Proof lies- The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies
on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side would fail I
no evidence at all were given on either side.

S.103 : Burden if Proof as to particular fact The burden of proof as to any particular
fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is
provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.

Illustration: A Prosecutes B for theft, and wishes the Court to believe that B admitted the
theft to C. A must prove the admission.

S. 104: Burden of Proving fact to be proved to make evidence admissible- The

burden of proving any fact necessary to be proved in order to enable any person to give
evidence of any other fact is on the person who wishes to give such evidence.

Illustration: A wishes to prove a dying declaration by B. A must prove Bs death.

IV] Examination in Chief: The examination of a witness by the party who calls him
shall be called his examination -in -chief.

Cross examination: The examination of a witness by the adverse party shall be called
his cross-examination.

Re-examination: The examination of witness, subsequent to cross-examination by the

party who called him, shall be called his re-examination.

Natural Justice-

Principles of natural justice have to be followed in inquiries which are conducted by

employer against an errant worker. No person should be appointed to hold an inquiry
against a worker ,who himself is interested in the matter either as complainant,
aggrieved party or one who is hostile to the person against whom the inquiry is to be
held.

The principle of impartiality- It has to be followed while conducting the domestic

inquiry.

Opportunity to the delinquent worker-The worker, against whom the inquiry is to be

held, should be given reasonable opportunity to defend himself.

Unbiased Inquiry-The Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer should be unbiased

against the worker against whom the inquiry is being conducted.