Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.03 seconds)The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 60 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Dolgobinda Paricha vs Nimai Charan Misra & Others on 27 April, 1959
In Dolgobinda Paricha v. Nimai Charan Misra & Ors.(1) the Apex Court held
that the statement in question was admissible because it was made before the
question in dispute had arisen. In other words, Court held that in the facts and
circumstances of that case the statement and the pedigree relied upon were made
ante litem motam and not post litem motam, for if the latter had been the case, the
document would have become inadmissible and in this connection the Court
observed thus:
Padmabati Dasi vs Rasik Lal Dhar on 21 December, 1909
24. The petitioner has filed affidavits before Scrutiny Committee, copies of which
are produced along with petition. None of the affidavits were verified. As a matter of
fact, the affidavit is to be modelled on the provisions contained in O.19, r.w.37 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (the Code), whether the Code applies in terms or not
and when the statement is not based on personal knowledge, the source of
information is required to be disclosed with adequate particulars. The importance of
setting out the sources of information in affidavits had come up for consideration
before the Apex Court in number of matters. One of the earliest decisions is State of
Bombay Vs. Purushottam Jog Naik 1952 SCR 674 wherein, the Apex Court endorsed
the decision of the Calcultta High Court in Padmabati Dasi Vs. Rasik Lal Dhar, ILR 37
Cal 259 and held that the sources of information should be clearly disclosed. The
affidavit requires the deponent to set out which statements are true to the knowledge
of the deponent and which of them are true to his information. In essence
verification is required to enable the Court to find out as to whether it will be safe to
act on such affidavit evidence. The importance of verification is to test the
genuineness and authenticity of the information furnished or allegations made and
also to hold the deponent responsible in the event falsity thereof is proved.
Yeshwant Sakhalkar And Anr. vs Hirabat Kamat Mhamai And Anr. on 30 April, 2004
27. While exercising the writ jurisdiction, the High Court has a limited role to play.
It is not the function of the High Court while exercising its supervisory jurisdiction to
enter into the disputed question of fact. It could intervene, if there existed an error
apparent on the face of the record or, if any other well known principle of judicial
review was found to be applicable was not applied. (See Yashwant Sakhalkar Vs.
Hirabat Kamat Mhamai [2004] 6 SCC 71).