nThe Delhi High Court held that the execution of a will was doubtful because though the testator and his wife used the same pen for their signatures, the two attesting witnesses used different ink. The Division Bench disagreed with the court. Agreeing with the Division Bench and observing that the testimony of the witnesses had been consistent and truthful, the Supreme Court held that a will could not be disbelieved because the testator had used a different pen (Hazara Bradri & others vs Lokesh Dutta Multani).
The inspector of the Employees’ State Insurance (ESI) sent notices to various diagnostic centres alleging that since their activities could be summed up as a manufacturing process, the term ‘factory’ could be applied to them as per the ESI Act. The Andhra Pradesh High Court said manufacturing processes under the Factories Act included processes for treating or adapting any article to its use, sale, delivery or disposal, etc. The court held in this case that since collecting and storing blood samples for pathological tests did not involve adapting or treating any article for delivery, sale, etc, such activities could not be termed as a manufacturing process (Vijaya Diagnostic Centre vs ESI).
In a property dispute, a person sought to enforce his rights by claiming to be the son of the other contest-
ant. Acting on his appeal for DNA tests, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the issue of legitimacy could be decided relying on Section 112 of the Evidence Act, which says that when a child is born during the subsistence of a marriage or 280 days after a marriage is dissolved, the child’s legitimacy is irrefutable. In this case, since specific dates with regard to marriage, divorce and childbirth had been mentioned, there was no need for DNA tests (Shaik Fakruddin vs Mohd Hassan and another).
SOLON
