Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.26 seconds)
Documents citing Nai Dunia Urdu Weekly Newspaper, ... vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. X, ... on 11 September, 2006

Icon Printing Process (P) Ltd. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr. on 21 March, 2007

9. On merits, it was submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the claim of the petitioner management to the effect that the workman had tendered his resignation, is wrong and in fact, the said resignation was obtained under duress and coercion from the workman, who subsequently made a complaint in this regard with the police station. The Kiryana shop referred to by the petitioner management was claimed to be run by the wife of the workman and not by the workman himself. Counsel for the workman relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Nai Dunia Urdu Weekly Newspaper v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. X, and Ors. reported as 2007 LLR 274, to state that mere denial of the signatures on the summons is not enough to rebut the presumption of proper service, particularly when all earlier notices were duly received by the petitioner.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - H Kohli - Full Document

M/S Anand & Associates vs Ajit Singh on 21 July, 2012

8. Similarly the process server has given specifications of the person to whom he had delivered the ordinary summons. The appellants did not specifically refute that no person with the name 'Rajesh' was present at their premises on 30.09.2006 or that he was not related to them and competent to receive summons on their behalf. Without giving proper and sufficient explanation in this behalf, the appellants could not have expected the Ld. Trial Court to take evidence in the matter by calling the process server or otherwise, just because they had denied having received summons of the suit. As has been observed in "Nai Duniya, Urdu Weekly Newspaper Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, 157 (2007) DLT 234", there was no reason for the Trial court to disbelieve the process server and to MCA No. 01/2012 Page no. 5 of 7 believe the appellants about the delivery of summons. The court has to presume that all officials Acts have been done in proper manner. It can be rebutted only by strong evidence. A mere denial of signatures cannot rebut the presumption of proper service. There is no reason why the process server would forged signatures of anyone or that the respondent had any hand in the service of summons.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Anand & Associates vs Ajit Singh on 21 August, 2012

8. Similarly the process server has given specifications of the person to whom he had delivered the ordinary summons. The appellants did not specifically refute that no person with the name 'Rajesh' was present at their premises on 30.09.2006 or that he was not related to them and competent to receive summons on their behalf. Without giving proper and sufficient explanation in this behalf, the appellants could not have expected the Ld. Trial Court to take evidence in the matter by calling the process server or otherwise, just because they had denied having received summons of the suit. As has been observed in "Nai Duniya, Urdu Weekly Newspaper Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, 157 (2007) DLT 234", there was no reason for the Trial court to disbelieve the process server and to MCA No. 01/2012 Page no. 5 of 7 believe the appellants about the delivery of summons. The court has to presume that all officials Acts have been done in proper manner. It can be rebutted only by strong evidence. A mere denial of signatures cannot rebut the presumption of proper service. There is no reason why the process server would forged signatures of anyone or that the respondent had any hand in the service of summons.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

This Order Shall Dispose Of An ... vs 8.2003 on 30 March, 2007

Management has merely pleaded that it was not aware of the present csae. Now who is to be blamed for it. It is clear from the record that Mr. Marcos the accounts officer received the summons on behalf of the management. The notice is signed by Mr. Marcos and he has written, "received for A.R.C. Detective Pvt. Ltd". It is not the case of the management that Mr. Marcos was not authorised to receive the summons nor such plea would be of any help to it as was observed by our own Hon'ble High Court in Nai Dunia Urdu Weekly Newspaper V. Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.X and others 2007 LLR 274. In this case the management alleged that no notice through registered cover was sent by the Labour Court and the service was manipulated by the workman in connivance with the process server. Management denied service of the notice. It was also pleaded that workman managed to get its stamp affixed on the notice. Hon'ble High Court disbelieved the management and held as follows :
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1