Judgment text0% read
Browse the contents
Read the full judgment on the Supreme Court website ↗
Case information
| Court | Supreme Court of Bangladesh — High Court Division |
|---|---|
| Case reference | Arbitration Application 14/2023 |
| Case-reference year | 2023 |
| Case type | Arbitration Application |
| Court website upload date | 25-AUG-26 |
The case-reference year is not the judgment year. The court website upload date is not a judgment date.
Official index description (excerpt)
Source: Supreme Court official index.
i) The distinction between the legal burden and the evidential burden must be carefully maintained. The legal burden of establishing the claim remained throughout upon the respondent as claimant. However, once the respondent/claimant had adduced evidence capable of supporting its case, the Tribunal was fully entitled to examine whether the petitioner had produced evidence explaining or rebutting facts lying particularly within its “own knowledge”. The Tribunal`s observations regarding the inadequacy of the petitioner`s evidence, therefore, relate to the weight and sufficiency of the rebuttal evidence rather than to any impermissible reversal of the legal burden of proof. ii) In substance, the petitioner`s grievance is that the Tribunal ought to have attached greater weight to the petitioner`s evidence and lesser weight to the respondent`s evidence. Such a contention goes to the appreciation of evidence rather than to the legality of the award. Section 43 does not permit this Court to undertake a fresh evaluation of the evidence for the purpose of determining whether another
[Excerpt ends; the complete index description is retained in the catalogue JSON.]