Lloyds Bank Ltd. Vs. the Lloyds Bank Indian Staff Association and ors. - Court Judgment
|Subject||Labour and Industrial|
|Court||Supreme Court of India|
|Judge|| Patanjali Sastri, C.J.,; B.K. Mukherjea,; S.R. Das and; Ghulam Hasan, JJ.|
|Acts||Constitution of India - Article - 136; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 17|
|Appellant||Lloyds Bank Ltd.|
|Respondent||The Lloyds Bank Indian Staff Association and ors.|
.....whatsoever the subsequent conduct of a donee cannot be a ground for recession of a valid gift.
indian evidence act,1872[c.a.no.1/1872] section 91: [s.b. sinha & h.s. bedi, jj] gift presumption held, where the deed of gift itself recites that the donor has given possession of the properties gifted to the donee, such a recital is binding on the heirs of the donor. it is an admission binding on the donor and those claiming under him. such a recital raised a rebuttable presumption and is ordinarily sufficient to hold that there was delivery of possession. therefore, the burden lies on those who allege or claim the contrary to prove affirmatively that in spite of the recitals in the gift deed to the effect that possession has been delivered over, in fact, the subject matter of the.....patanjali sastri, c.j.1. this is an appeal by special leave from an award of the all india industrial tribunal (bank disputes).2. a preliminary objection is raised to the maintainability of this appeal, the liberty to raise such objection having been reserved to the respondents at the time when special leave was granted to the appellants. the objection is that the award was passed on 5-1-1950 and was published under section 17, industrial disputes act, 1947, by the government in a notification of the ministry of labour dated 17-1-1950 and was also declared binding on the same day for a period of one year. article 136 has, therefore, no application to the award as it has been held by this court that the said article has no retrospective operation. this is not disputed by mr. s. chaudhuri.....
Patanjali Sastri, C.J.
1. This is an appeal by Special Leave from an award of the All India Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes).
2. A preliminary objection is raised to the maintainability of this appeal, the liberty to raise such objection having been reserved to the respondents at the time when Special Leave was granted to the appellants. The objection is that the award was passed on 5-1-1950 and was published under Section 17, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the Government in a notification of the Ministry of Labour dated 17-1-1950 and was also declared binding on the same day for a period of one year. Article 136 has, therefore, no application to the award as it has been held by this Court that the said article has no retrospective operation. This is not disputed by Mr. S. Chaudhuri but he argues that the award was really published only on 28-1-1950, when the notification referred to above appeared in the Gazette of India. We see no force in this argument. The preliminary objection is allowed and the appeal is dismissed with costs.