Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 34 (0.63 seconds)

Sarbananda Sonowal vs Union Of India & Anr on 12 July, 2005

In such circumstances, the appellant ought to have stated in his affidavit, or demonstrated by some documentary evidence, that his ancestors had migrated from that village to the other village where the appellant was reported to be residing, but, according to the Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India and another, (2005) 5 SCC 665 Tribunal, there was no such claim by the appellant in his affidavit. Therefore, the Tribunal discarded the probative value of those voter list entries. Interestingly, the school leaving certificate on which heavy reliance was placed by the appellant was also doubted as there appeared no reason for it to have been obtained 10 years after passing from the institution. Moreover, the headmaster of the school was not called for to prove the authenticity of the certificate of which duplicate was produced.
Supreme Court of India Cites 79 - Cited by 123 - G P Mathur - Full Document

Birad Mal Singhvi vs Anand Purohit on 2 August, 1988

This certificate was issued 28 years thereafter on 09.01.2016. Such belated issuance would naturally cast serious aspersion on the bonafides of such certificate which is heightened by the unauthorised use of the State Emblem of India, that too, not as per the statutory format. Thirdly and most importantly, the author of the said certificate did not appear before the Tribunal alongwith the school admission register to prove the contents of the said certificate, more particularly, date of birth and relation with Lt. Jonab Ali. How the date of birth in school certificate has to be proved has been settled by the Supreme Court long back in Birad Mal Singhvi vs Anand Purohit reported in 1988 (Supl) SCC 604 and further reiteration is not necessary. Therefore, Ext. A besides not been proved, is also inadmissible in evidence."
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 444 - K N Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next