Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.56 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
M/S. Lipton India Ltd. & Anr vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 8 October, 1996
11. Mr. Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel vociferously contended that the verification made by the respondents in their reply statement that as well as additional reply, is not in accordance with the requirements of the rule and law in as much as the Under Secretary, DPAR, Services (I), Govt. of Karnataka, Bangalore had not indicated about the source of information or the basis for making submissions therein. Reliance was placed on Lipton India Limited and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. particularly Paragraph 7 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court recorded strong displeasure about the manner in which the Karnataka State Government made a statement on oath before the High Court, which was incorrect. Following observations were made in Para 7 therein:
Jagdish Prasad vs The State Of Bihar And Another on 13 February, 1974
As far as the case of Jagadish Prasad (supra) is concerned the said case was in relation to the detention matter whereby the civil liberty of an individual is curtailed and therefore, observation made therein would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. I may note that Rule 12 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, deals with filing of reply and other documents by the respondents. As per the mandate of the said rule, written statement by the respondents has to be signed and verified in the same manner as provided for in Order VI, Rule 15 of Code of Civil Procedure. The said order and rule of CPC in turn specifically requires that every pleadings shall be verified at the foot by the party and shall specify by reference to number, paragraphs of the pleadings what he verifies of his own knowledge and what he verifies upon information received and believed to be true, besides putting a date on which and the place at which it is signed. On perusal of the written statement as well as additional reply, I find that the verification made therein is not in accordance with the mandate of the aforesaid rules. The official who has filed written statement verified that the statement made therein as "believed to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief and information". What is the source of knowledge, how he believed and what are the source of information etc., have not been spelt out. Similarly, the additional reply filed by the Under Secretary to Government, DPAR Services I, Bangalore has been verified stating that the contents of Para 1 - 10 of the reply "are true and correct and that I have not suppressed any material facts". This additional reply statement also suffers from the same infirmities as of earlier reply statement. On perusal of the aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that the mandate of Rule 12 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 as well as Order VI, Rule 15 of CPC has been breached.
Mohammad Ibrahim vs B. Rama Rao on 28 November, 1975
Further reliance was placed on Mohd. Ibrahim v. B. Rama Rao Para 6 wherein the Court expressed its grave concern to the irresponsible statements made, without any record to any accuracy, in the affidavits filed on behalf of the State Government.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Rajendra Roy vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 17 November, 1992
But as held in the later cases, namely Rajendra Roy v. Union of India:- "It may not be always possible to establish malice in fact in a straight-cut manner. In an appropriate case, it is possible to draw reasonable inference of mala fide action from the pleadings and antecedent facts and circumstances. But for such inference there must be firm foundation of facts pleaded and established."
E. P. Royappa vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 23 November, 1973
The burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. The allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved, was the observation made in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N. .