cites: 56201410

T S Mokha vs Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd & Anr on 23 March, 2023

7. The appellant objected to the aforesaid retirement and lodged a protest with the Respondent Company through a letter dated 23.08.2003 (Ex. P-20) and thereafter sent a legal notice dated 26.11.2003 (Ex. P-21) demanding withdrawal of the letter dated 19.08.2003. Thereafter, in the absence of any reply, the appellant instituted Suit no. 106/2004, titled as 'Sh. T.S. Mokha Vs. Ansal Properties & Industrial Ltd. and Another' before the learned Trial Court.

Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]

Constitution Article Cites 9 - Cited by 20927

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Union of India - Act Cites 0 - Cited by 497050

Section 115 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 1492

The Companies Act, 2013

Union of India - Act Cites 0 - Cited by 5991

The Specific Relief Act, 1963

Union of India - Act Cites 0 - Cited by 10149

The Indian Contract Act, 1872

Union of India - Act Cites 0 - Cited by 11724

Vidhyadhar vs Manikrao & Anr. on 17 March, 1999

Learned counsel has further relied upon Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao, reported as (1999) 3 SCC 573 to state that since the written statement has not been proved in accordance with law, an adverse inference ought to be drawn against the Respondent Company.

Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 681 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Shri L.M. Khosla vs Thai Airways International Public ... on 1 August, 2012

44.It is beneficial to refer to the judgment delivered by co-ordinate bench of this Court in L.M. Khosla (Supra) wherein the Court dealt with the distinction between private and public employment for determining contractual liability. Relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment has been produced herein below:

Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 26 - V J Mehta - Full Document

Sughar Singh vs Hari Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. on 26 October, 2021

31.Learned counsel further relied upon paragraph 10 of the judgment delivered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sughar Singh v. Hari Singh, reported as 2021 SCC OnLine SC 975 to state that amendment to the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is prospective, and not retrospective in nature.

Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 60 - M R Shah - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results

Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]

Section 115 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]