Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (0.33 seconds)
Judgment/Texmaco vs . Chander Pal/ Case No.625/3/U.S.630 Of ... on 8 January, 2010 cites

Sri S.K. Sarma vs Mahesh Kumar Verma on 17 September, 2002

In the case of S. K. Sarma v. Mahesh Kumar Verma It was observed that, (supra) " 13. Further, the contention of the learned senior counsel for the respondent that the railway administration has to prove that the property in question was belonging to it before invoking Section 138 is totally misconceived because once it is admitted that respondent was given possession of the premises in question by order dated 17­1­1967 as he was entitled for the same while working as CPRO of the Department, he could not be permitted to deny the title of the railway administration. Admittedly, respondent was inducted because he was in railway service. Now, he is estopped from challenging the title of the appellant over the premises in question. For this purpose, we would refer to Section 116 of the Evidence Act....."
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 206 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next