Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 171 (1.41 seconds)
Documents citing Avadh Kishore Das vs Ram Gopal And Ors. on 15 December, 1978

Unknown vs Nem on 30 April, 1992

This 2173 has been approved and affirmed by the Apex Court in Ram Jankijee Deities (supra). None of the witnesses of plaintiffs (Suit-4) have said that he was present at the time of such placement. On the contrary, plaintiff no. 3 (Suit-5) , i.e., OPW 2 in his statement under Order X Rule 2 has clearly said that due ceremonies were performed when the idols were transferred. Paramhans Ramchandra Das also appeared in the witness box as OPW 1 and has proved the state of affairs. His presence on the site at the relevant time has not been doubted either by the plaintiffs (Suit-4) or their witnesses or before us during the course of arguments by learned counsels. Some other witnesses have also proved this fact.
Allahabad High Court Cites 120 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pradeep Kumar Dusad,Jaipur vs Dcit Central Circle 2, Jaipur on 12 March, 2025

Shri Pradeep Kumar Dusad It was held that evidentiary admissions are not conclusive proof of the facts admitted and may be explained or shown to be wrong, but they do raise an estoppel and shift the burden of proof on to the person making them. The Supreme Court further held that unless shown or explained to be wrong, they are an efficacious proof of the facts admitted.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), ... vs Shri Pradeep Kumar Dusad, Jaipur on 12 March, 2025

Shri Pradeep Kumar Dusad It was held that evidentiary admissions are not conclusive proof of the facts admitted and may be explained or shown to be wrong, but they do raise an estoppel and shift the burden of proof on to the person making them. The Supreme Court further held that unless shown or explained to be wrong, they are an efficacious proof of the facts admitted.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dahiben vs State on 30 June, 2011

As per paragraph No.3.2 of the petitions, the petitioners have stated that they learnt for the first time that land was designed as new tenure land only when they obtained 7x12 forms as they wanted to transfer the land because of their poor financial condition. The averments in para 3.2 are vague as anything could be. The petitioners could not inform the Court as to when applications for obtaining 7x12 forms were made and when those forms were made available to them. There is no manner of doubt that to avoid to make payment of premium to Government because of rise of price of land and in order to show that the petitions were filed within reasonable time, the petitioners moved applications on 10th February, 1999 to cancel the entry showing land as "new tenure land" and filed petitions after receipt of reply. However, there is no manner of doubt that the petitioners filed the petitions after more than 50 years with an oblique motive and after thought. Above referred entries were made in the public records by public servants in discharge of their official duty enjoined by the law of the country in which the record is kept, it is relevant public document as provided under Sections 35 and 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and hence, this Court may presume as provided under Sec.90 of the Indian Evidence Act that the entries made in the revenue record are true, correct, legal and proper. Reliance is placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avadh Kishore Dass vs. Ram Gopal and Others, reported in AIR 1979 Supreme Court page 861.
Gujarat High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - M Shah - Full Document

The Employees State Insurance ... vs Shri Krishna Goshala on 24 August, 2018

law, namely, Avadh Kishore Dass Vs. Ram Gopal and others reported in AIR 1979 SC 861 cited by the appellants in buttress of their argument also does not appear to be applicable in the case under hand. As in the aforesaid case the Hon‟ble Apex Court has been pleased to held that it is true that evidentiary admissions are not conclusive proof of the facts admitted and may be explained or shown to be wrong; but they do raise an estoppels and shift the burden of proof on to the person making them or his representative- in-interest. Unless shown or explained to be wrong they are an efficacious proof of the facts admitted. But in the case under hand, letter dated 10.04.2000, Ext.D said to be written by Ratan Kumar Jha, the then Assistant Manager of the Goshala volunteering coverage of the Goshala under the ESI Act does no amount to admission of the respondent and it is not stopped from challenging the coverage of the Goshala under the Act because the aforesaid letter has not been written by the aforesaid Ratan Kumar Jha rather by Satya Narain Malpuri and moreover the said Ratan Kumar Jha has not been examined by the appellants by summoning in the learned Court below and more so vide Ext.10, which is a coverage letter issued by the appellants, Goshala has been covered under Section 1 (5) of the Act not on the basis of the alleged volunteer coverage pleaded by said Ratan Kumar Jha rather on the basis of the Patna High Court MA No.617 of 2012 dt.24-08-2018
Patna High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - P C Jaiswal - Full Document

M/S Headmaster Saloon Pvt.Ltd., ... vs Dcit-Circle-1(1), Chandigarh on 21 August, 2024

"It was held that evidentiary admissions are not conclusive proof of the facts admitted and may be explained or shown to" be wrong, but they do raise an estoppels and shift the burden of proof on to the person making them. The Supreme Court further held that unless shown or explained to be wrong, they are an efficacious proof of the facts admitted."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next