Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing R. Saravanan vs P.N.Peruvazhuthi on 10 November, 2009

G.Ravichandran vs V.Devendiran on 18 June, 2019

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ plaintiff relied on the decision in R.Sarvanan vs. R.N.Peruvazhuthi reported in 2009 (5) CTC 593 and contended that court could resort to comparison of signatures and arrive at its own conclusion when other materials produced and evidence adduced are corroborative of such comparison. He would further contend that in the instant case, the respondent/plaintiff and other http://www.judis.nic.in 4 witnesses have not been examined and if at all a court comes to a conclusion that sending the Promissory Note for expert opinion is inevitable, then the court can send the Promissory Note along with the admitted signature after the execution of witness on the side of the respondent/plaintiff. His specific contention is that the petition filed by the revision petitioner/ defendant at this stage is premature.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R Hemalatha - Full Document

The Management Of vs The Presiding Officer on 23 December, 2009

5. The learned counsel further submitted that under Section 73 of the evidence act, the Court is entitled to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature on it's own. In stead of doing that, the Labour Court erroneously held the burden of proof was cast upon the petitioner management to prove the resignation letter. The Labour Court failed to take note of the submission of Form-10 to the Provident Fund Office and the same was marked by the petitioner as Ex.M.7. With regard to comparision of signatures the learned counsel relied upon the Judgment of this Court in R.Saravanan Vs. P.N.Peruvazhuthi reported in 2009 (5) CTC 593 wherein it was held that the Court could resort to comparison recording the signatures and arrive at its own conclusion when other materials produced and evidence adduced are corroborative of such comparison. Relying on the said Judgment, the learned counsel submitted that the Labour Court could have resorted to comparison of the signature and without doing that the Labour Court gave finding against the petitioner. In nutshell the learned counsel submitted the award is contrary the evidence available on record and therefore sought for setting aside the award.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - N Kirubakaran - Full Document
1