Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)Vinod Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs Suraj Kumari And Anr. on 5 August, 1993
The purport is to hold the workman responsible for
his statement. It cannot be lost sight of that the I.D. Act is a welfare and
benevolent legislation and no pedantic interpretation can be given of its
WP(C) 14715/2004 & WP(C) 19645/2005 Page 4 of 6
provisions. This Court in cases under Section 25 B of Delhi Rent Control Act,
1958 was also faced with a situation as to whether the grounds on which leave
to contest the petition for eviction was sought are required to be stated in the
application or in the affidavit or in both. It was held in Vinod Industries Pvt.
Ltd. Vs. Suraj Kumari 1993 Raj. LR 495 and in Jijar Singh Vs. Mohinder
Kaur AIR 1979 Delhi 245 (DB) that if for the sake of brevity the averments in
the application are not reproduced in the affidavit but a specific reference is
made to them in the affidavit, there is sufficient compliance.
Jijar Singh vs Mohinder Kaur on 10 July, 1979
The purport is to hold the workman responsible for
his statement. It cannot be lost sight of that the I.D. Act is a welfare and
benevolent legislation and no pedantic interpretation can be given of its
WP(C) 14715/2004 & WP(C) 19645/2005 Page 4 of 6
provisions. This Court in cases under Section 25 B of Delhi Rent Control Act,
1958 was also faced with a situation as to whether the grounds on which leave
to contest the petition for eviction was sought are required to be stated in the
application or in the affidavit or in both. It was held in Vinod Industries Pvt.
Ltd. Vs. Suraj Kumari 1993 Raj. LR 495 and in Jijar Singh Vs. Mohinder
Kaur AIR 1979 Delhi 245 (DB) that if for the sake of brevity the averments in
the application are not reproduced in the affidavit but a specific reference is
made to them in the affidavit, there is sufficient compliance.
Section 25B in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
1