Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 46 (0.96 seconds)
Documents citing Balkrishna Das Agarwal vs Smt. Radha Devi And Ors. on 9 December, 1988

Memo Of Parties vs Ram Niwas on 21 February, 2014

He relied on AIR 1989 Allahabad 133 titled 'Balkrishna Das Agarwal Vs. Radha Devi & ors.' wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court that law placed no obligation on members of a joint family that the agreement to separate must be in writing, but the rule was not applicable when partition among co­sharers took place as in case of partition of immovable property worth more than Rs. 100/­ being effected among co­sharers, both a written instrument and registration were required. This judgment in fact is more in favour of the defendants rather than the plaintiff, because it is the plaintiff's own case that the suit properties were ancestral properties, having been allegedly inherited by the plaintiff and defendants no. 1 and 2 jointly in equal shares therefore, it would not be a case of partition among co­sharers but of partition amongst members of a joint family, and as per the above case law cited by the plaintiff himself, there was no requirement in law for the partition deed to be in writing.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Balaji Tarders Through Its ... vs . Yogesh Kumar on 28 January, 2020

16. The first objection of the ld. counsel for complainant is that the report of handwriting expert should not be believed as he has not produced any document to show that he is an expert. Ld. counsel has Page 15 of 20 ACMM EAST/KKD/Delhi/28.01.2020 M/s Balaji Tarders through its proprietor Sailesh Pandey Vs. Yogesh Kumar PS : Preet Vihar CC no. 51204/16 relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad titled Balkrishan Das Agarwal Vs. Radha Devi and Ors (supra).
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nokia Technologies Oy vs Guangdong Oppo Mobile ... on 17 November, 2022

72. I do not see how any order can be passed on the basis of such affidavits, which are not admitted by the opposite party. Expert evidence, though given a slightly exalted status under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, is otherwise relevant, only if it is tested in the manner envisaged by the CPC and the Evidence Act. At a pre-trial stage, therefore, I confess my hesitance in relying upon expert evidence, which is not admitted by either party. One may refer, in this context to the following passage from the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in Balkrishna Das Agarwal v. Radha Devi56, which sets out clearly the status of expert evidence:
Delhi High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 3 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Manat Khemraj Somaji vs Dist. Primary Education Officer on 27 December, 2000

12. Learned advocate Mr. Pujara has also placed reliance upon the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 and has pointed out that the said provisions are applicable to the petitioners and binding to the respondents and in case of disciplinary matters as per sec. 7,procoedure for imposing major punishment has been prescribed and as per section 7 subclause (1), no order imposing on a member of the panchayat service any of the penalties specified in clause (6) to (9) of the rules shall be passed except after a formal inquiry is held as far as maybe, in the manner hereinafter provided. The manner has been provided that the disciplinary authority shall frame definite charge on the basis of the allegation and shall communicate such charges alongwith the statement of allegations to the member of panchayat service and also require him to submit the explanation within such time as may be specified in writing and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person. The person against whom such inquiry has to be held shall for the purpose of preparing defence be permitted to inspect and take extracts from such records as he may specify. On receipt of the written statement of the defence, if any such statement is not received within the time specified, the disciplinary authority may himself inquire into such charges as are not admitted. If the member of the panchayat service desires to be heard in person, he shall be so heard. If he so desires or if the disciplinary authority so directs an oral enquiry shall be held by the enquiry officer. At such inquiry, evidence shall be heard as to such of the allegations as are not admitted and the person charged shall be entitled to cross examine the witnesses, to give evidence in person and to produce documents if any and to have such witnesses called as he may wish. As per sub clause (9) of clause 7 of the said rules, at the commencement of the inquiry, the inquiry officer shall prepare a report of the inquiry, recording his findings on each of the charges together with reasons therefor. If in the opinion of the enquiry officer, the proceedings of the inquiry establish, charges different from those originally framed, he may record findings on such charges. After receiving the finding report from the inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority shall consider the record of inquiry and will consider the finding on each charge having regard to the findings on the charges and record of proceedings. As per sub clause (13) of clause 7 of the said rules, if the disciplinary authority having regard to the findings is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clause (1) to (5) of rule 5 should be imposed, it shall pass appropriate order in the subject to the condition that in every case in which it is necessary to consult the board of selection committee, the record of the inquiry shall be forwarded to the board of selection committee, as the case may be, for its advice and such advice shall be taken into consideration before passing final orders. According to the learned advocate Mr. Pujara, each of the petitioners herein is a member of the panchayat service and hence these rules are applicable to the petitioners and all the petitioners are working for more than ten years and they are all permanent teachers working with the respondent panchayat and, therefore, the order of termination is bad, illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice. He has also relied upon the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Recruitment of Primary Teachers) Rules, 1970 and has made reference to the definition of 'administrative officer'. He has relied upon rule 4 of the said rules whereunder qualification has been prescribed. He has also relied upon rule 11,12 and 13 of the said rules. He has submitted that in view of these recruitment rules, the petitioners are qualified candidates appointed after selection and the committee has power to relax the qualification and after preparing the final list of the candidate selected for appointment shall be prepared by the committee and the selected candidates, if required to undergo training in such course as per the government guidelines and execute bond giving undertaking to serve under the panchayat for not less than four years. As per rule 13 of the said rules, the administrative officer shall issue appointment orders of the candidate by the committee strictly according to the ranks given by the committee in the select list. Rule 14 thereof provides that subject to the availability of vacancies candidates from the select list prepared on May shall be appointed before select list is prepared in October next becomes finalised. Mr. Pujara has also relied upon the provisions of the Bombay Primary Education Act,1947. He has submitted that as per section 24 of the said Act, the administrative officer shall have power, subject to such general instructions as may be issued from time to time by the director to promote, transfer and take all disciplinary action (including removal or dismissal) against the staff maintained under section 20. He has thereafter relied upon the provisions of section 20. Section 20(1) of the said Act provides that every district school, board with the approval of the Government and every authorised municipality shall maintain an adequate staff of assistant administrative officers, supervisors, attendance officers, supervisors, attendance officers, clerks, primary school teachers and inferior servants and other staff (including engineering staff) as may be in the opinion of the Government be necessary for the administration, management and control of approved schools within its area or for enabling a primary school panchayat constituted under section 36B to discharge its functions under this Act. Section 20(2) of the said Act provides that the staff maintained under sub section(1) shall be the servants of the district school board or of the authorised municipality as the case may be and shall receive their pay, allowances, gratuities and pensions from the primary education fund. Such staff maintained by a district school board shall receive their provident fund from the fund established under section 46A and the primary school teachers maintained by an authorised municipality shall receive their provident fund from the primary education fund.
Gujarat High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 1 - H K Rathod - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next