Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.75 seconds)
A.Somasundaram vs The Secretary To Government on 20 February, 2017 cites

Union Of India vs Harnam Singh on 9 February, 1993

In Union of India v. Harnam Singhthis Court considered the question whether the employer was justified in declining the respondent's request for correction of the date of birth made after thirty-five years of his induction into the service and whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was justified in allowing the original application filed by him. While reversing the order of the Tribunal, this Court observed: (SCC pp. 167-68, para 7)
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 448 - L M Sharma - Full Document

Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr vs M. Hayagreev Sarma on 6 April, 1990

In the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Hayagreev Sarma (1990 (2) SCC 682) the A.P. Public Employment (Recording and alteration of Date of Birth) Rules, 1984 were considered . The public servant concerned had claimed correction of his date of birth with reference to the births and deaths register maintained under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal corrected the date of birth as claimed by the petitioner before the Tribunal, in view of the entry in the births and deaths register ignoring the rules framed by the State Government referred to above. It was inter alia observed by this Court:
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 90 - K N Singh - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs Mohinder Singh & Ors on 28 September, 2007

In State of Punjab Vs. Mohinder Singh reported in (2005) 3 SCC 702, this Court had occasion to deal with the evidentiary value of horoscope as proof of date of birth. It was held in that decision that a horoscope is very weak piece of material to prove age of a person and in most of the cases the maker may not be available to prove that it was prepared immediately after the birth and therefore a heavy onus lies on the person who wants to press it to prove its authenticity. It was further held that in fact a horoscope to be treated as evidence in terms of Section 32(5) of Evidence Act, 1872, it must be proved to have been made by a person having special means of knowledge as regards authenticity of the date, time etc. mentioned therein. In that context horoscopes have been held to be inadmissible in proof of age. 
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 82 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 Next