Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.83 seconds)
Abdul Motleb @ Abdul Motaleb vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 26 September, 2019 cites

Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 8 November, 2012

In this regard we may observe that in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465, the Supreme Court held that it is a settled legal proposition that an Affidavit is not "evidence" within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It can be used as "evidence" only if, for sufficient reasons, the Court passes an order under Order 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Supreme Court held that the filing of an Affidavit of one's own statement, in one's own favour, cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to reach a conclusion as regards a particular fact situation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 65 - Cited by 585 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Smt. Sudha Devi vs M.P. Narayanan & Ors on 26 April, 1988

While holding thus, the Supreme Court also made reference to the case in Sudha Devi vs. M.P. Narayanan, reported in (1988) 3SCC 366. Law being clear on the evidentiary value of an Affidavit, the Exhibit-1 document cannot be regarded as sufficient proof linking the petitioner to Kashem Sheikh, whose name appeared in the Voter List of 1966. The petitioner utterly failed to discharge his burden, as required of him, under Section 9 of the Foreigners Act, 1946"
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 88 - L M Sharma - Full Document
1