Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.21 seconds)
Documents citing Raj Rani Chachra & Ors. vs The National Capital Territory Of Delhi ... on 6 September, 2012

Rajesh Kumar Sharma vs National Capital Territory Of Delhi on 9 May, 2013

In this, they had enclosed copies of the Honble Apex Court in Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. vs. Raj Rani Chachra & Ors. dated 09.08.2012 (supra), and a copy of the order dated 16.03.2012 in WP ( C) No.8791/2011 passed by the Delhi High Court in Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. vs. Raj Rani Chachra & Ors. from which that SLP had arisen as well as a copy of the order dated 16.09.2009 in OA No.851/2009 Raj Rani Chachra & Ors. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. They had also filed a copy of the Delhi High Courts order dated 08.05.2012 in W.P. (C ) No.324/2012 Department of Health and Family Welfare and Anr. vs. Pawan Kumar Goel and Ors., which Writ Petition was also allowed following the earlier judgments of the Delhi High Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar & Ors. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. in OA No.3419/2010 and Dipika S. Kumar (supra).
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Raj Rani Sharma vs . State Of Nct on 11 September, 2012

6. The plaintiff has proved the untraceable report as Ex.PW2/1 and Ex.PW2/2. PW­1 has also deposed through her affidavit that she has not seen or heard of Mr. Rajnish Kumar Sharma since more than 8 years. It is clear from the statement of the witnesses as well as documents Ex.PW2/1 and Ex.PW2/2 that Mr. Rajnish Kumar Sharma is missing since 05.09.2002 and nothing has been brought on record contrary to the testimony of PW­1 and PW­2. As per Section 108 of the Evidence Act, 1872 the question whether a man is alive or dead is to be proved when he is not heard of for more than 7 years by those Suit No. 60/11 Page 3 of 4 Raj Rani Sharma Vs. State of NCT who would have naturally heard of him if he had been alive. The burden of proving that he is alive is shifted to a person who affirms it. From the perusal of the evidence on record, it has been proved by the plaintiff that they have not heard of Mr. Rajnish Kumar Sharma as alive and have not seen him for more than 8 years. The testimony of PW1 and PW2 has gone unrebutted. Accordingly, there is no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted testimony of PW1 and PW2 or to doubt the authenticity and veracity of the documents exhibited. Keeping in view the presumption under Section 108 of the Evidence Act, 1872 the plaintiff is able to establish her case that Mr. Rajnish Kumar Sharma is not seen or heard of for more than eight years and is missing since 05.09.2002.
Delhi District Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1