Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.28 seconds)Section 35 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Power Tools And Appliances Co. Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 1 August, 1994
23. Reliance placed by Mr. Shaw on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Power Tools & Appliances Co. Ltd v. Union of India (supra) is wholly misplaced. In that case
this Court was merely considering the question as to whether the provisions of Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act provides for more efficacious remedy and in that situation whether the High Court may refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice as also the jurisdiction of the authorities under the said Act was in question. As indicated hereinbefore, in the instant case the principles of natural justice have no application. It is not a case where alteration in the date of birth is sought to be made by the employer to the disadvantage of the employee. Only in such cases the principles of natural justice would be applicable.
A.K. Chatterjee And Another vs Union Of India And Others on 13 August, 1990
21. ln R.K. Chatterjee v. Union of India (supra) a learned Single Judge of this Court, inter alia held that the Medical expert's opinion that the age of the petitioner in December 1975 was between 45 and 50 cannot be assailed as uncertain merely because the range of variation of probable age is somewhat wide. The learned Judge held that the opinion depends on data obtained by ossification test and the opinion of the Medical expert for determination of age in controversy involved in the case was very important. With utmost respect to the learned Judge, the views expressed by him cannot be accented in view of the decisions referred to hereinbefore. If the Medical Board is not in a position to ascertain the correct date, the purpose thereof would stand frustrated. In the aforementioned case the petitioner thereof mentioned a wrong date of birth which was recorded in his Service Book. It was held that he was not estopped from challenging the correctness of the same on the basis of an authentic document namely, School Leaving Document. It is not necessary to consider the matter any further as in the instant case the date of birth of the petitioner recorded in the School Leaving Certificate had been accepted as correct.
Dr. Miss Binapani Dei vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 6 May, 1964
See Binapani Dei v. State of Orissa and Sarjoo Prosad v. General Manager and Anr. (1981-II-LLJ-380).
Bhupindra Nath Chatterjee vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 14 December, 1976
In Bhupendra Nath Chatterjee v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court has held that the date of birth recorded in the service records should be accepted as correct.
Union Of India vs Harnam Singh on 9 February, 1993
"The respondent slept over his rights to get the date of birth altered for more than thirty years and woke up from his deep slumber on the eve of his retirement only. The law laid down by this Court in Harnam's case, (supra) was, thus, fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case of the respondent and the Tribunal failed to follow the same without even pointing out any distinguishing features on facts. Stale claims and belated applications for alteration of the date of birth recorded in the Service Book at the time of initial entry., made after unexplained and inordinate delay, on the eve of retirement, need
to be scrutinised carefully and interference made sparingly and with circumspection, The approach has to be cautious and not casual. On facts, the respondent was not entitled to the relief which the Tribunal granted to him".
Secretary & Commissioner, Home ... vs R. Kirubakaran on 21 September, 1993
28. In Secretary & Commissioner. Home Department and Ors. v. R. Kirubakaran. reported in (1994-I-LLJ-673), the Supreme Court, inter alia held that when no time limit is prescribed for filing an application for correction of date of birth, it should be done within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court in the aforementioned case has observed that the applicant has to produce evidence in support of his claim which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth and whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant to prove that his date of birth recorded in his Service Book is wrong.
State Of T.N vs T.V. Venugopalan on 3 August, 1994
29. This aspect of the matter has recently been considered by the Supreme Court again in State of T.N. v. T.V. Venugopalan, wherein the Supreme Court in no unmistakable terms has laid down that a belated application on the eve of retirement should not be accepted.
Chief Medical Officer vs Khadeer Khadri on 10 January, 1995
In Chief Medical Officer v. Khadeer Khadri it was held that an employee cannot claim that he had detected the mistake after a long time. Such a plea, the Apex Court observed, would not be bond fide and only a ruse to get over the bar of limitation, for the date of birth entered in the
Service Book record to be corrected.