Advanced Search Results

Kailash Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Civil

Acts : Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 - Sections 23(3); Oaths Act, 1969 - Sections 3

Reported in : AIR1994Raj177; 1994(1)WLN273

and fees. Realising these difficulties and their monopolistic attitude, State Government issued the said notification under Section 3, Oaths Act, 1969 empowering all Oath Commissioners appointed by the Rajasthan High Court, Rajasthan Board of Revenue, District and Sessions Judges

Sand Plast (India) Ltd. Vs. I.T.C. Bhadrachalam Finance and Investment ...

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Company

Acts : Company (court) Rules, 1959 - Rules 2(13), 6, 13, 18, 21, 24, 26, 30, 33, 35, 40, 44, 47, 48, 49, 52, 53, 54 and 76; Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 2(3), 433, 434, 439, 477, 478, 503, 539, 543, 545, 550, 552, 555, 621, 625, 633 and 643; Oaths Act, 1969 - Sections 4 and 7; General Clauses Act, 1897 - Sections 3; Power of Attorney Act, 1882; Oaths (Amendment) Act, 1873 - Sections 13; Representation of People Act, 1951 - Sections 81 and 83; Conduct of Election Rules, 1961; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 139; Notaries Act, 1952; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1976 - Sections 46

Reported in : [2002]111CompCas471(Raj); 2001(1)WLC469; 2003(1)WLN594

the rules made thereunder and in particular Rules 6, 18, 21 and 33 and certain provisions of the Oaths Act, 1969, General Clauses Act etc. He also relied on the following judgments reported in:i) Mool Chand Wahi vs. National … (JTC Bhadrachalam Finance & Investment Ltd. Mumbai. Company Petition No. 9/97 was filed by the respondent herein under Sections, 433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up of the appellant company. According to … is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,51,237/-due to it on 3tst December, 1996 with interest thereon. Since the appellant company was unable to

Hiralal Parbhudas Vs. Ganesh Trading Company and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trade and Merchsandlse Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 12, 12(3) and 56; Trade and Merchandised Marks Rules, 1959 - Rule 116(1) and 116(3); Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 6; Oaths Act, 1969 - Sections 3(1)

Reported in : AIR1984Bom218

affidavits with the correct heading and which declared before the Executive magistrate, Taluka Bhuj. Section 3(1)(a) of the Oaths Act, 1969 empowers 'all courts and persons having by law authority to receive evidence to administer oath. Section 6 of

R. Krishnappa S/O. Ramappa Vs. the State of Karnataka Rep. by Its Secr ...

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Election

Acts : Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act - Sections 15, 43, 132, 167, 167(1), 167(2), 168, 168(2), 171 and 172; Bombay Public Trust Act - Sections 37(1); Evidence Act - Sections 3; Karnataka Panchayat Raj Rules; Oaths Act, 1969 - Sections 3, 6, 6(2) and 7

Reported in : ILR2008KAR2185; 2008(3)KarLJ238; 2008(4)KCCRSN249; 2008(2)AIRKarR353; AIR2008NOC1790

to render persons who give false evidence liable to prosecution as is clear from Section 6 of the Oaths Act, 1969. Section 7 of the Oaths Act clarifies that the proceedings will not be invalidated or the evidence will not … covered by the Oaths Act or not, is to be decided.At this Stage, it is relevant to note Section 3 of the Oaths Act (relevant portion), which reads thus:Section 3- Power to administer oaths- (1) The following Courts

P. Giribabu Vs. Deputy Director of Enforcement

Court : Chennai

Subject : FEMA

Acts : Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 - Sections 13, 37, 37(1) and 37(3); ;Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 131, 131(1), 131(B) and 293; ;Oaths Act, 1969 - Sections 3, 4, 5, 6(2) and 7; ;Sea Customs Act - Section 171A and 171A(4); ;Indian Oaths Act, 1873; ;Advocates Act, 1961 - Section 30; ;Karnataka Land Reforms Act - Section 20A; ;Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act; ;Customs Act, 1962 - Section 108; ;Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Section 135(2) - Order 10, Rule 2 - Order 16 - Order 18, Rule 2; ;Constitution of India - Articles 20(3) and 21

Reported in : [2010]99SCL268(Mad)

respondent or his officials.8.1 Secondly, it was contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that Section 3 of the Oaths Act, 1969 enables administration of Oath. However, the respondent has not administered the oath as … Section 37 of FEMA also, the persons summoned have to be examined on oath. Section 7 of the Oaths Act, 1969 provides that what is recorded after administration of Oath is evidence. Income-tax Act provides that examination by an

V.R. Kamath Vs. Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport ...

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Civil

Acts : High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959 - Rule 2; Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, 1967 - Rule 28-A; Oaths Act, 1969 - Sections 3(2); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 139 - Order 19, Rule 1 - Order 37A, Rule 3; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 297; Notaries Act, 1952 - Sections 8, Rule 11(2); Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - Rules 3, 5 and 21; Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227

Reported in : AIR1997Kant275; ILR1997KAR1856

imposed or in exercise of the powers conferred upon them by law. Sub-section (2) of Sec. 3 of Oaths Act provides that the High Court may empower any person to administer oaths and affirmation in respect of affidavits … to the persons concerned, is an indication of the sad state of affairs.5. Section 3(1) of the Oath Act, 1969, empowers Courts and persons having by law or consent of parties, authority 'to receive evidence, to administer oaths

K. Srinivasa Vs. Kashinath

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138 and 145; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 200; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 3; General Clauses Act, 1897 - Sections 3

Reported in : 2005(1)ALD(Cri)13; IV(2005)BC497; 2004CriLJ4566; ILR2005KAR2890; 2004(7)KarLJ535

the role assigned to the person entitled to administer oath is no less sacrosanct. Section 3 of the Oaths Act, 1969 specifies persons on whom the power to administer oath or record affirmation or oath before the person authorised

Dilawarsab Alisab Jakati Vs. State of Karnataka by Its State Public Pr ...

Court : Karnataka

Subject : CriminalCivil

Acts : Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 326, 375, 376, 376(2) and 511; Oaths Act, 1969 - Sections 4 and 5; Evidence Act - Sections 3, 32 and 119; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313

Reported in : 2005CriLJ2687; ILR2005KAR2282

person can be recorded by signs made in open court and such evidence is admissible'.Section 4 of the Oaths Act, 1969 provides for oaths or affirmation to be made by witnensses, interpreter and jurors, which reads as follows:'4. Oaths … of the Ordinance in this connection. Parallel Sections in our Evidence Act being also 3 and 119. In Section 3, which is the interpretation clause, while defining 'Evidence' it has been stated that it means and includes, inter

In the Matter Of: Bonneswar Dutta and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 437, 438, 438(1) and 439(1);; Oaths Act, 1969 - Section 4(2);; Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 20(3) and 226;; Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 132;; Income Tax Act, 1922 - Sections 22 and 34;; Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 147;; Court Fees Act, 1870 - Section 19

Reported in : (1998)1CALLT74(HC),1998(1)CHN123,1998CriLJ1383

filing an affidavit, is that event that would amount to violation of the provisions section 4(2) of the Oaths Act, 1969 which provides as hereunder:'......Nothing is this section shall render it lawful to administer, is a criminal proceeding, an … arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence. The expression 'reason to believe* also occurs is section 34 of the old Income Tax Act of 1922 and now is section 147 of the Income Tax Act

Smt. Anchi Vs. Balu Ram

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : 1975CriLJ1991; 1975()WLN26

the affidavits having been considered the judgements of both the Courts are vitiated and Section 7 of the Oaths Act, 1969 does not cure the defect as the form given in the schedule comes into function after the affidavit … Anchi and Baluram were not in accordance with law, because the verification as required by Order 19, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code does not indicate the source of information. He further submits that the affidavits having been