Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Mustt Asiron Bibi@ Mst Achiran Nessa vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 20 June, 2022

Md. Abu Bakkar Siddique vs The Union Of India And 11 Ors on 15 May, 2025

"20. A contention was raised during the hearing that discrepancies in the name and age in the voter lists should not be given and due weightage as because the entries were made by the Electoral Authorities and not by the proceedee. However, this aspect of the matter was gone into by this Court in the case of Basiron Bibi Vs. Union of India , reported in (208) 1 GLT 372, wherein it was held as under -
Gauhati High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - M Nandi - Full Document

Ambia Khatun @ Umbia Khatoon vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 29 August, 2025

In Basiron Bibi vs Union of India, reported in 2018 (1) GLT 372, this court had held that the voters' lists were adduced as evidence by the petitioner herself to prove her case that she was not a foreigner but a citizen of India. Petitioner cannot insist that only that portions of the voters' lists which are in her favour should be accepted and those portions going against her should be over-looked. This is not how a document put forward as a piece of evidence should be examined. The document has to be appreciated as a whole.
Gauhati High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - K R Surana - Full Document

Page No.# 1/15 vs The Union Of India And 6 Ors on 25 September, 2025

The learned Standing Counsel thereafter, referred to the case of Basiron Bibi Vs. Union of India reported in 2018 (1) GLT 372, to submit that each of the documents exhibited in the proceeding have to be appreciated as a whole Page No.# 10/15 and not in parts. He submitted that the petitioner cannot insist that only those portions of the exhibits which are in her favour should be accepted and those which are against her should be overlooked. He submitted that though minor discrepancies in the description of voters in different Electoral Roll or documents exhibited by the petitioner should not be made the basis for disbelieving the claims made by the petitioner, however, the variations in the different documents presented by the petitioner before the Tribunal were not minor variations and, therefore, the Tribunal did not commit any error in rejecting the claim of the petitioner to citizenship of India and in answering the reference in the affirmative in favour of the State.
Gauhati High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - S K Medhi - Full Document

Page No.# 1/13 vs The Union Of India And 6 Ors on 21 January, 2026

2018 (3) GLT 118 may be referred to. In the said case, the Division Bench of Page No.# 12/13 this Court has observed to the effect that it is trite that mere filing of written statement and oral testimony in a proceeding under Foreigners Act, 1946 would not be enough, further holding that the fact-in-issue would have to be proved by the proceedee by adducing documentary evidence which are admissible and relevant. Moreover, in the case of Basiron Nessa v. Union of India, 2018 (4) GLT 692, this Court had held to the effect that documentary evidence must be proved from record and not solely by oral testimony. Therefore, the oral testimony of DW-2 and DW-3 does not help the petitioner in any way. It may be reiterated that the documents exhibited by the said witnesses as Ext.A to Ext.G, being not the document of the petitioner, also does not help the petitioner in any manner whatsoever.
Gauhati High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - K R Surana - Full Document

Page No.# 1/14 vs The Union Of India And 6 Ors on 30 January, 2026

In the case of Basiron Nessa v. Union of India & Ors., 2018 (4) GLT 692 , referring to the certificate by Gaonburah, wherein it was stated that Basiron Nessa is the daughter of Late Abdul Barek and Rabia Khatun, this Court had held, that documentary evidence must be proved from record and not solely by oral testimony. Thus, the Gaonburah's certificate (Ext.1) does not help the petitioner in any manner. It may further be mentioned that though the Gaonburah was examined as DW-2, neither he nor DW-1 had exhibited and proved the signature of the Gaonburah.
Gauhati High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - K R Surana - Full Document

Page No.# 1/16 vs The Union Of India And 6 Ors on 12 March, 2026

18) In the case of Basiron Nessa v. Union of India & Ors., 2018 (4) GLT 692, the Gaonburah's certificate (Ext.A) was exhibited. The Gaonburah was examined as a witness. In the said certificate it was stated that Basiron Nessa is the daughter of Late Abdul Barek and Rabia Khatun. The Gaonburah had stated in his cross examination that he had issued the certificate after looking at the voters lists of 1966 and 1971. Under the said facts, it was held that documentary evidence must be proved from record and not solely by oral testimony.
Gauhati High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - K R Surana - Full Document
1   2 Next