#Adverse Inference

The Delhi High Court upheld an adverse inference against a husband who failed to file his income affidavit despite six opportunities over 14 months, affirming Rs.20,000 monthly interim maintenance. It also refused to condone a 222-day delay in filing the revision, as the petitioner's ignorance claim was contradicted by his counsel's recorded presence at the hearing.

Karnataka High Court rules that banks must substantiate Forward Purchase Contracts with written evidence under the Evidence Act, or risk adverse inference. The judgment reinforces that the burden of proof rests squarely on the claimant, impacting debt recovery proceedings and banking litigation.

West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission rules that allegations of document spoliation must be adjudicated only at the final hearing, not through interlocutory applications, to uphold principles of natural justice. The decision reinforces that adverse inference cannot be drawn prematurely, ensuring fair contestation for all parties in consumer complaints.

Karnataka High Court rules that contract labourers and security guards under direct employer supervision qualify as 'workmen' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, mandating prior government permission for lay-offs. The court awarded Rs. 3,00,000 compensation each to 84 retrenched workers, reinforcing protections for indirect employment relationships.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that a Municipal Committee cannot assert ownership over open spaces in a colony without documentary evidence of vesting. Drawing an adverse inference against the Committee for failing to produce key records, the Court restored the co-operative society’s title, reinforcing the burden of proof in land disputes involving public authorities.

Delhi High Court rules that failure to produce muster rolls by an employer raises an adverse inference, establishing an employer-employee relationship. However, casual workers must still prove 240 days of continuous service in the preceding year to claim Section 25F protection under the Industrial Disputes Act.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that plaintiffs cannot compel defendants to testify on their behalf, as such practice undermines adversarial fairness and improperly shifts the burden of proof. If a defendant refuses to testify despite being summoned, courts may draw an adverse inference - reinforcing the principle that each party must prove their own case without coercing the opposing side to act as a witness.

Orissa High Court rules that employers failing to produce attendance and wage registers under the Industrial Disputes Act can face adverse inference, leading to compensation awards. The ruling reinforces workmen's rights to fair adjudication where employers withhold critical employment records.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed motor accident claims after ruling that the failure to implead the actual negligent driver-an occupant of the claimant’s car-prevented liability from being fastened on the Jeep’s driver or insurer. The court upheld the Tribunal’s adverse inference, reinforcing that non-joinder of a key party can defeat compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Bombay HC rules that an employer's failure to produce salary and attendance records-when in its control-shifts the burden of proof, entitling superannuated workers to monetary compensation for illegal termination. The judgment reinforces that adverse inference applies even where continuous service is disputed, offering a critical remedy for workers denied reinstatement.

National Green Tribunal holds that failure to produce official maps or records justifies adverse inference, reinforcing accountability in environmental compliance and urban planning enforcement.

Supreme Court holds that participation in a mutual suicide pact constitutes abetment under Section 306 IPC, even if the accused survives. Key forensic evidence exonerates rape and strangulation claims.