This tag is associated with 2 posts

Industrial Disputes Act sec. 25F,25FF sec.25N and Section 17B of I.D. Act – Estopel – State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Appellants Versus Sarva Shramik Sangh, Sangli & Ors. … Respondents = http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40894

Industrial Disputes Act sec. 25F,25FF  sec.25N and Section 17B of I.D. Act – Estopel – Already     decided case attained finality – and same was applied with some suitable modifications = Retrenchment of labours temporary having serice of more than 10 years of service with out sufficient notice and with out payment of damages on the trasfer … Continue reading

As second respondent had looked after their mother and their property, the appellants agreed for her continuing as licencee for some time. She did not however vacate=Normally this Court will not, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, interfere with finding of facts recorded by the first appellate court, which were not disturbed by the High Court in second appeal. But what should happen if the first appellate court reverses the findings of fact recorded by the trial court by placing the burden of proof wrongly on the plaintiffs and then holding that the plaintiffs did not discharge such burden; or if its decision is based on evidence which is irrelevant or inadmissible; or if its decision discards material and relevant evidence, or is based on surmises and conjectures; or if it bases its decision on wrong inferences drawn about the legal effect of the documents exhibited; and if grave injustice occurs in such a case on account of High Court missing the real substantial question of law arising in the appeal and erroneously proceeds on the basis that the matter does not involve any question of law and summarily dismisses the second appeal filed by the= The fact that was proved was possession of suit portions which was not in dispute, but not tenancy in regard to the suit portions, which was in dispute. In the absence of any documentary evidence showing the tenancy or payment of rent, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is more trustworthy and probable than the uncorroborated interested evidence of DW1. (The evidence of DWs. 2 and 3 does not have any bearing on the issue of tenancy claimed by respondents). We therefore find that the judgments of the first appellate court and the High Court are unsustainable and the finding of the trial court that respondents are gratuitous licencees was correct and justified.

1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8400-8401 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 6095-6096/2009] Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare & Anr. … Appellants Vs. Sadhu Dadu Shettigar (Shetty) & Anr. … Respondents J U D G M E N T R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J. Leave granted. Parties will be … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,881,143 hits



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com