Sh. Kapil Dev @ Rajender Kumar vs M/S Tyre Junction on 22 November, 2007
Same was the view
expressed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of 'Union of
India vs. Narayana M (2002) IVLLJ (Supp) Bom. 912'.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.33 seconds)Sh. S.U. Siddiqui vs ? 9 ?A@ Bdcfe <-> +-Gh* ')< I Bdc J (K1 Gh. ... on 3 January, 2008
Same was
the view expressed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of
'Union of India vs. Narayana M (2002) IVLLJ (Supp) Bom. 912'. There
is no explanation at all in our case for the delayed claim.
Smt. Suman Devi W/O Late Sh. Balakaram vs Ganesh Razzaq Reported As 57 ( 1995) Dlt ... on 29 July, 2008
Same was the view expressed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in
the case of 'Union of India vs. Narayana M (2002) IVLLJ (Supp)
Bom. 912'. There is no sufficient explanation in our case for the
delayed claim.
Sh. Praveen Kumar vs Delhi Development Authority on 19 March, 2008
Same was the view expressed by Hon'ble
`
a b c d e
f g h i g h h j
Bombay High Court in the case of 'Union of India vs. Narayana M
(2002) IVLLJ (Supp) Bom. 912'. There is no sufficient explanation in
our case for the delayed claim.
Braham Prakash vs M/S Delhi Development Authority on 23 April, 2008
Same was the view expressed by Hon'ble
Bombay High Court in the case of 'Union of India vs. Narayana M
(2002) IVLLJ (Supp) Bom. 912'. There is no sufficient explanation in
our case for the delayed claim. Besides this, it is also expedient to
note here that in the case relied upon by the workman, allowed by
x
y z { | } ~
the other court, the management witness had admitted that the
concerned workman had worked for 12 hours a day, every day
during his tenure as chaukidar whereas there is no such admission in
the present case. In the said case the workman had also proved in
the court the copies of his attendance record but the same have
not been produced or proved here.
Sh. Jaspal Singh vs Delhi Development Authority on 23 April, 2008
Same was the view expressed by Hon'ble
Bombay High Court in the case of 'Union of India vs. Narayana M
(2002) IVLLJ (Supp) Bom. 912'. There is no sufficient explanation in
our case for the delayed claim. Besides this, it is also expedient to
note here that in the case relied upon by the workman, allowed by
the other court, the management witness had admitted that the
concerned workman had worked for 12 hours a day, every day
during his tenure as chaukidar whereas there is no such admission in
the present case. In the said case the workman had also proved in
the court the copies of his attendance record but the same have
not been produced or proved here.
Sh. Satish Kumar vs Delhi Development Authority on 23 April, 2008
Same was the view expressed by Hon'ble
Bombay High Court in the case of 'Union of India vs. Narayana M
(2002) IVLLJ (Supp) Bom. 912'. There is no sufficient explanation in
our case for the delayed claim. Besides this, it is also expedient to
note here that in the case relied upon by the workman, allowed by
the other court, the management witness had admitted that the
concerned workman had worked for 12 hours a day, every day
during his tenure as chaukidar whereas there is no such admission in
the present case. In the said case the workman had also proved in
the court the copies of his attendance record but the same have
not been produced or proved here.
Sunder Lal vs M/S Delhi Development Authority on 23 April, 2008
Same was the view expressed by Hon'ble
Bombay High Court in the case of 'Union of India vs. Narayana M
(2002) IVLLJ (Supp) Bom. 912'. There is no sufficient explanation in
our case for the delayed claim. Besides this, it is also expedient to
i
j k l m n
o p
p q r
s
s t
note here that in the case relied upon by the workman, allowed by
the other court, the management witness had admitted that the
concerned workman had worked for 12 hours a day, every day
during his tenure as chaukidar whereas there is no such admission in
the present case. In the said case the workman had also proved in
the court the copies of his attendance record but the same have
not been produced or proved here.
Sh. Rajender Singh vs Delhi Development Authority on 23 April, 2008
Same was the view expressed by Hon'ble
Bombay High Court in the case of 'Union of India vs. Narayana M
(2002) IVLLJ (Supp) Bom. 912'. There is no sufficient explanation in
our case for the delayed claim. Besides this, it is also expedient to
note here that in the case relied upon by the workman, allowed by
the other court, the management witness had admitted that the
concerned workman had worked for 12 hours a day, every day
during his tenure as chaukidar whereas there is no such admission in
the present case. In the said case the workman had also proved in
the court the copies of his attendance record but the same have
not been produced or proved here.
Sh. Raghunath Pandey vs Delhi Development Authority on 23 April, 2008
Same was the view expressed by Hon'ble
Bombay High Court in the case of 'Union of India vs. Narayana M
(2002) IVLLJ (Supp) Bom. 912'. There is no sufficient explanation in
our case for the delayed claim. Besides this, it is also expedient to
note here that in the case relied upon by the workman, allowed by
the other court, the management witness had admitted that the
concerned workman had worked for 12 hours a day, every day
during his tenure as chaukidar whereas there is no such admission in
the present case. In the said case the workman had also proved in
the court the copies of his attendance record but the same have
not been produced or proved here.