Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.74 seconds)
Documents citing Niranjan Kaur vs New Delhi Hotels Ltd. And Ors. on 3 September, 1987

Sheetal Sharma & Anr. vs State Nct Of Delhi on 6 September, 2023

16. When the investigation has still not concluded, this case in this Court‟s opinion does not fall under the purview of Niranjan Kaur vs New Delhi Hotels Ltd. And Ors. AIR 1988 Delhi 332 and State Bank of India(Successor To ...vs Shyama Devi AIR 1978 SC1263, relied upon by petitioners, as the contentions raised before this Court are the defenses which have been raised by learned counsel for petitioners at the appropriate stage of trial.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - S K Sharma - Full Document

Om Prakash vs Smt. Gayatri Devi And Ors. on 4 September, 2006

In support of his contention, Mr. Mathur has relied upon Smt.Niranjan Kaur v. New Delhi Hotels Ltd. and Ors. and Gopal Krishnai Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif and Ors. AIR 1968 SC 1418. The ratio of these judgments is that if a party in possession of best evidence which would throw light on the issue in controversy withholds such evidence, the court shall draw an adverse inference against it notwithstanding.that onus of proof does lie on him.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ram Pyare vs Industrial Tribunal And Ors. on 13 December, 2007

14. The argument of the counsel for the petitioner that since the respondent failed to produce the records pertaining the interview dated 7.10.1977, therefore an adverse inference ought to be drawn against it is devoid of merits. Reliance placed by the counsel for the petitioner workman on the Circular that provides for weeding out of old records is misplaced as the said Circular stipulates record retention as three years with respect to confirmation file orders. The plea of the counsel for the petitioner that as the statement of claim is dated 6.8.1981, the period of three years had not expired in respect of the records pertaining to the interview held on 7.10.1977, is misconceived for the reason that the respondent would have been served only thereafter and by the time the written statement was filed by the respondent management on 23.10.1981, the period of three years had expired. Secondly, the petitioner workman having himself failed to discharge the initial onus placed on him, it is not permissible for him to seek to shift the burden of proof on to the respondent management and blame it for non-production of records. The judgment in the case of Niranjan Kaur (supra) is not applicable in the facts of the case since the records do not reflect any willful withholding of evidence by the respondent management in the present case.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - H Kohli - Full Document
1