Writ Jurisdiction To Be Exercised In Circumspection, Can’t Displace Authority’s Order By Merely Taking Another Opinion On Same Material

Case: Rajender Prasad Pant V. Exchange Agencies & Anr.

Coram: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma

Case No.: W.P.(C) 11076/2022

Court Observation: “This Court in its writ jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate the evidence,”

“The entire evidence produced by the petitioner-claimant had been appreciated and it was inter alia held that the same were not sufficient to prove the claim of the claimant against the respondent,”

“It has been noted that the respondent is an educated person and was appointed at a salary of Rs.50,000/- p.m. and therefore he was expected to file some material evidence i.e. appointment letter, salary slip etc. on the record to prove the relationship of employee and employer but no such document/evidence has been placed on record.” “The petitioner had to be aware of his rights and should have insisted for the documents. This is not the case where the petitioner is an illiterate person or had been working as a labourer. The petitioner herein, is a professional and an expert in accountancy. It is also cardinal principle that one who makes the claim is bound to prove the same. The claim could not have been granted on the bald assertion,”

Previous Posts

Kerala High Court Issues Directions For Effective & Gender-Neutral Victim Protection Protocol For Sexual Assault Survivors

Prosecution Must Explain Injuries Found On Deceased, Fanciful Thinking Not Basis To Arrive At Conclusions In Criminal Case: Telangana High Court

Kerala High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Appointment Of Non-Hereditary Trustees At Sree Emoor Bhagavathy Temple

Article 227 Confers Supervisory Jurisdiction, High Court Cannot Consider Such Submissions That Were Not Raised Before Court Below: Delhi HC

Commercial Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018 Cannot Be Applied Retrospectively: Delhi High Court

Keywords

Writ Jurisdiction To Be Exercised, Can’t Displace Authority’s Order

Related Articles

• High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction Over Orders Passed Under Order 39 Rules 1&2 Restricted, Can Be Exercised In Case Of Palpable Error: Delhi HC
• Can’t Interfere With Discretionary Order Condoning Delay In Supervisory Jurisdiction U/Art 227 Unless There Is Total Non-Application Of Mind: Delhi HC
• Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC Recall Applications Can’t Be Allowed Merely For Filling Lacuna In Cross-Examination: Delhi High Court