Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.23 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 29 in The Patents Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Gopal, Krishnaji Ketkar vs Mahomed Haji Latif & Ors on 19 April, 1968
Managements, having taken up the plea that the engagement of the
workers concerned was through Contractors, and it was quite obligatory
for them to have maintained the relevant records under Section 29 of
the Act, 1970. It was also pointed out that the Management's witness
examined before the Industrial Court had conceded that they were
maintaining relevant records in this regard and as such, non-production
of the said records before the Industrial Court persuaded the Industrial
Court to draw adverse inference; in turn, leading to granting of
compensation of Rs.20,000/- to each of the workers, which by itself is
not adequate and reinstatement ought to have been ordered in the said
circumstances. The 'burden of proof' on the part of the Respondent-
Management, who was having custody of the documents to have
produced the same before the Court, is sought to be asserted with
reference to the ruling rendered by the Apex Court in Gopal Krishnaji
26
Ketkar Vs. Mohamed Haji Latif & Others15. The main question
considered in the said case was whether the land comprised in Plot No.
134 was the property of the Dargah or whether it belonged to the
appellant. The learned Judges observed in paragraph 5 of the verdict
that, in the course of evidence the appellant had admitted that he was
enjoying the income of Plot No.134, but he did not produce any
accounts to substantiate his contention. The appellant had also
admitted therein that "he had got records of the 'Dargah income' and
that the account was kept separately", which however was not
produced. It was contended that there was no duty for the appellant to
have it produced and the onus was upon the respondents to prove their
case and to show that the Dargah was the owner of Plot No.134, which
contention was not accepted as correct by the Bench holding that even
if the burden of proof did not lie on a party, the Court may draw adverse
inference if he withholds important documents in his possession which
can throw light on the facts at issue. (emphasis supplied).
Section 2 in Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 [Entire Act]
Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006
Section 27 in Children Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Umaji Keshao Meshram & Ors vs Radhikabai W/O Anandrao Banapurkar & ... on 14 March, 1986
19. After appreciating the question as above, the learned Judges discussed
the various rulings rendered by the Apex Court and other High Courts
on the aspect of jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, with specific reference to those cases where
maintainability of the writ appeal / letters patent appeal was involved.
One of the rulings referred to in this regard is Umaji Keshao Meshram
Vs. Smt. Radhikabai6, which was subsequently relied on and followed
in Mangalbhai Vs. Dr. Radhyshyam s/o Parischandra Agrawal 7 and
Sushilabai Laxminarayan Mudliyar Vs. Nihalchand Waghajibhai
Shaha8.
Mangalbhai And Ors vs Dr. Radhyshyam S/O Parischandra ... on 17 July, 1992
19. After appreciating the question as above, the learned Judges discussed
the various rulings rendered by the Apex Court and other High Courts
on the aspect of jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, with specific reference to those cases where
maintainability of the writ appeal / letters patent appeal was involved.
One of the rulings referred to in this regard is Umaji Keshao Meshram
Vs. Smt. Radhikabai6, which was subsequently relied on and followed
in Mangalbhai Vs. Dr. Radhyshyam s/o Parischandra Agrawal 7 and
Sushilabai Laxminarayan Mudliyar Vs. Nihalchand Waghajibhai
Shaha8.