Court : Delhi
Reported in : 44(1991)DLT735
..... (5) the petitioner, who appeared in person, contended that he has challenged the respondents-defendants to take oath in gurudwara and mandir, as referred to above, after the oaths act, 1873 was repealed under section 9 of the oaths act, 1969 and consequently he is not bound by the statements of the defendants made in gurudwara and mandir. ..... it has been further observed by the court that the objects and reasons of the oaths act, 1969 have stated, inter aha, that 'the law commission has strongly opposed to retention of provisions, namely, sections 9 to 12, relating to the conclusive or binding character of special oaths as in their opinion, it is opposed to juristic principles and public policy' ana for these reasons, sections 9 to 12 of the oaths act, 1969 have not been regarded as binding by the learned single judge. ..... since the special oath was administered after coming into force of oaths act of 1969, one of the conditions that the agreement must have been taken place before the commencement of the oaths act, 1969 was not satisfied and, thereforee, it was held that sections 9 to 12 of the oaths act, 1873 could not be resorted to in the proceedings before the civil judge and, thereforee, the decree passed by the learned civil judge on the basis of the special oath was one without jurisdiction. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2002]111CompCas471(Raj); 2001(1)WLC469; 2003(1)WLN594
..... drew our attention to various provisions of the companies act and 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. ..... of the oaths act, 1969 provides for the proceedings and the evidence not invalidated by omission of oath or irregularity ..... of the oaths act, 1969 deals with forms of oaths and affirmation ..... as follows:'thus, it is apparent that normally swearing does not include affirmation or declaration and further under rule 49 of rules of the high court of judicature for rajasthan, 1952, it is provided that the person administering an oath or affirmation to the person making an affidavit shall follow the provisions of the oaths act, 1969. ..... 7 of the oaths act, 1969 is corresponding to ..... as follows:'139 oath on affidavit by whom to be administered in the case of any affidavit under this code-(a) any court or magistrate, ora(aa) any notary appointed under the notaries act, 1952, or)(b) any officer or other person whom a high court may appoint in this behalf, or(c) any officer appointed by any other court which the state government has generally or specially empowered in this behalf, may administer the oath to the deponent. ..... the form of oath/affirmation given in the name of god 'in case of swearing, and 'i do solemnly affirm' in case of affirmation, which clearly indicates that swearing and affirmation of an affidavit are distinct acts and to be' performed under the rules and practice of the court .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2008KAR2185; 2008(3)KarLJ238; 2008(4)KCCRSN249; 2008(2)AIRKarR353; AIR2008NOC1790
..... having regard to the scheme of oaths act, more particularly, section 7 of the oaths act, 1969, this court is of the opinion that even if the authority who is not empowered to administer oath, his action of administering oath would not vitiate the proceedings or vitiate the statements recorded by ..... main object of administering oath is to render persons who give false evidence liable to prosecution as is clear from section 6 of the oaths act, 1969. ..... , contended that neither the constitution nor the act confers jurisdiction to the state election commissioner to administer oath or to record the evidence; that whenever the power to administer oath is provided to a particular authority, it is specifically stated so in the constitution and the oaths act; that as neither the oaths act nor the constitution or the panchayat raj act does confer the power to administer oath, the state election commissioner was not justified in administering oath; that even in the absence of any ..... specific provision under the act and in the absence of rules, the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2005CriLJ2687; ILR2005KAR2282
..... is unfortunate on the part of the learned sessions judge that he has not even considered the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of the oaths act, 1969 to know the procedure to record the evidence of a deaf and dumb witness.27. ..... section 119 of the evidence act reads thus:'where a person is disabled to speak, the evidence of such 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 ..... the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of the oaths act and the evidence is not being recorded as required under section 119 of the indian evidence act, the evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be accepted ..... reading of sections 4 and 5 of oath act, the interpreter as well as the witness both have to be administered oath before the court proceeds to record evidence of ..... oath act enables a witness or interpreter to make an affirmation instead of oath. ..... in the eye of law as the oath was not administered to the translator in accordance with sections 4 and 5 of the oaths act. ..... she has further stated that her husband went and informed the parents of the accused about the act of their son-dilawarsab, according to her, her husband told not to go to hospital and that he wanted to have a panchayat with the ..... that her husband informed while he was coming towards the house, he saw the accused doing an act of 'visible world' and that he questioned him further, why you did it, she is your .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1994Raj177; 1994(1)WLN273
..... 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 and collectors to administer oaths and affirmations for the purposes of affidavits to be used in non-judicial proceedings also. ..... -- in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the oaths act (central act 44 of 1969), the state government hereby empowers following to administer oaths and affirmations for the purpose of affidavits to be used in non-judicial proceedings :-(1) commissioners of oaths appointed under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 297 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 by the high court or courts of sessions. ..... it is also, the case of the petitioner that the provisions of rule 23(3) of the rajasthan minor mineral concession rules, 1986 accepting affidavits verified by oath commissioners are against the provisions of the notaries act, 1952, requiring that affidavits to be filed in non-judicial proceedings can be verified by a notary only and accordingly the notification annexure 1 issued by the respondent no. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1982Delhi19; 20(1981)DLT383; 1981(2)DRJ254
..... this statement of law, however, is not applicable in india, where the indian oaths act, 1873 was in force up to 26th december, 1969, the oaths act, 1969 came into force from 26th december, 1969 repealing the act of 1873. ..... under section 7 of the oaths act, 1969 fallure to take oath or solemn affirmation does not debar a court from acting on the evidence. ..... section 7 of the oaths act, 1969 reads as under : 'no omission to take any oath or make any affirmation, no substitution of any one for any other of them, and no irregularity whatever in the administration of any oath or affirmation or in the form in which it is administered, shall invalidate any proceeding or render inadmissible any evidence whatever, in or in respect of which such omission, substitution or irregularity took place, or shall affect the obligation of a witness to state the truth'. ..... under section 4 of the oaths act, 1969 oaths or affirmations are to be made by all persons, that is to say who may lawfully be examined or required to give evidence besides others. ..... under section 3 of the oaths act, 1969 all courts and persons having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence have power to administer oath. ..... in other words, failure to administer oath does not mean that the statement of a witness recorded by the court is not admissible under this section the evidence of the respondent-landlord which has been recorded without oath or solemn affirmation is admissible and thereforee the same can be acted upon. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2000(5)ALD98; 2000(4)ALT482
..... sridhar reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff relying upon sections 4, 5 and 6 read with the schedule of the oaths act, 1969 (act 44 of 1969 - for short 'the new act') submits that a witness has an option, in law, either to make an oath in the name 'of the god or make an affirmation before giving evidence, the court below has grossly erred in refusing to record the evidence of the proposed pw2, sri venkata subbaiah, on the sole ground that he has ..... the indian oaths act, 1873 (for short 'the old act') clearly recognised this freedom of a witness under sections 5 and 6 and in fact section 6 clearly exempts hindus and muslims and any person who has an objection to make an oath, from making an oath before giving evidence and allows them to make an affirmation.8. ..... affirmation by persons desiring to affirm :--a witness, interpreter or juror may, instead of making an oath, make an affirmation'.the new act also prescribes the 'forms of oaths or affirmations under section 6 read with the schedule. ..... 'proviso to sub-section (1) of section 6 of the new act even enable the court to permit a witness, on his request, to make an oath or affirmation in any other form common amongst, the class of persons to which he/she belongs.9. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2008KAR4734; 2008(4)KCCR2804
..... the petitioner is before this court under articles 226 & 227 of the constitution of india, praying for the following relief:(i) to declare that the provision contained in order 18 rule 4 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (as amended by act 22 of 2002 (annexure-al) is repugnant to the provisions contained under the indian evidence act, 1872 (act 1 of 1872) and the oaths act, 1969; and(ii) to quash the order dated 16.9.2005 made on i.a-iv filed in os no. ..... there is no conflict between order 18 rule 4 of c p c on one side and the provisions of the oaths act and the evidence act on the other. ..... learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and there is no conflict between order 18 rule 4 of cpc on the one side and the provisions of the evidence act and oaths act, on the other.5. ..... it is further contended that order 18 rule 4 of cpc is in direct conflict with section 6(2) of the oaths act as well as the indian evidence act. ..... the hon'ble apex court in salem advocates bar association's case, supra, while considering the validity of order 18 rule 4 of cpc and other amendments made to code of civil procedure by act 22/2002 and held that the amended provisions are valid. ..... it is pertinent to mention that in view of huge pendency of civil cases and in the interest of speedy disposal of cases, the legislature thought it fit to amend the code of civil procedure and therefore amended the same by act 22 of 2002. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1984Bom218
..... section 3(1)(a) of the oaths act, 1969 empowers 'all courts and persons having by law authority to receive evidence to administer oath. ..... kale that the discretion exercise by the deput register under section 56 of the act in the respondents favour should not be lightly disturbed and the appellate court should therefore not disturb the judgment and order of the learned single judge. ..... thus executive magistrates being empowered to administer oath, the swearing of certain affidavits before the executive magistrate was legal and proper. ..... mater or matters to which they relate 'as required by sub-rule (1) and have not been taken' before any court or person having by law authority to receive evidence , or before any officer empowered by such court as aforesaid to administer oaths or to take affidavits ' as required by sub-rule (3)(a).18. ..... kale that the respondents were entitled to the benefit of section 12(3) of the act on the ground of honest concurrent user. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2005)139PLR616
..... coming first to the objection taken by the learned counsel for the respondent that the plea of non compliance of the provisions of the oaths act, 1969 was not taken by the petitioner in his review application before the lower court, i am of the view that a plea which is purely based upon provisions of law, without the aid of facts or evidence in support thereof, can be ..... monika goel, learned counsel for the respondent, has contended that provisions of the oath act, 1969 are not attracted to the present case as herein the petitioner himself insisted on the oath to be taken by the respondent and the same having been taken, it was the petitioner who got his suit dismissed as withdrawn on august 12, ..... dogra has contended that the very approach of the learned civil court in deciding the suit on the basis of oath was erroneous in law as after the repeal of the indian oath act, 1873 by the oaths act, 1969, the suit could not have been decided in the afore-mentioned manner as section 8 to 12 of the 1873 act, which used to authorize the court to dispose of the civil suits on the basis of oaths, are no longer in force. ..... has also contended that no such plea in relation to violation of provisions of the oaths act, 1969 was taken by the petitioner in his review application before the lower court.7. ..... the import of the repeal of indian oaths act, 1873 and/or oaths act, 1969 having come into force the revisional court could have gone into it even if no such plea was taken before the lower court .....
Tag this Judgment!