Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for People''''s Uion For Civil Liberties VS Union of India...

Checking relevance for People''''s Union For Civil Liberties VS Union of India...

Checking relevance for President Of India VS V. L. Das...

President Of India VS V. L. Das - 1998 0 Supreme(SC) 260 : A defendant (respondent) can file an additional affidavit even if they have already filed a reply affidavit, provided the court grants permission. In this case, the court allowed the respondent to file an additional affidavit to clarify allegations that were not adequately addressed in the initial reply affidavit, demonstrating that the court has discretion to permit such filings even after a reply has been submitted.Checking relevance for Bank Of Rajasthan Ltd. VS VCK Shares & Stock Broking Services Ltd. ...

Bank Of Rajasthan Ltd. VS VCK Shares & Stock Broking Services Ltd. - 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 1140 : Under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, a defendant may file a counter-claim against the claim of the applicant (bank) in addition to pleading a set-off. Such a counter-claim shall have the same effect as a cross-suit, enabling the Tribunal to pass a final order on both the original claim and the counter-claim. Furthermore, every pleading by the defendant, including a counter-claim, must be supported by an affidavit verifying all facts, pleadings, and documents annexed to the application or written statement. This means that a defendant can file a counter-claim (and thus an affidavit) without filing a formal reply, as the counter-claim itself is a standalone pleading that requires affidavit support under Section 19(10A).Checking relevance for T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad VS Union Of India...

T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad VS Union Of India - 2000 0 Supreme(SC) 100 : Yes, a defendant can file an affidavit without filing a reply. In the case referenced, the court explicitly permitted Mr. K. K. Venugopal, counsel for Mr. Soloman (the defendant), to file a reply/response to an affidavit within three weeks. However, the court also stated that the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Amicus Curiae could file their responses within specified timeframes. Crucially, the court did not require the filing of a formal reply before allowing an affidavit to be filed. The fact that the court allowed the filing of an affidavit (from the Collector) and then gave specific timeframes for replies indicates that affidavits can be filed independently of a formal reply, and that the process allows for sequential submissions—affidavit first, followed by reply later. This demonstrates that filing an affidavit does not necessitate the prior filing of a reply.Checking relevance for Aditi alias Mithi VS Jitesh Sharma...

Aditi alias Mithi VS Jitesh Sharma - 2023 7 Supreme 322 : Under the guidelines issued in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324, the respondent (defendant) in a maintenance proceeding must submit a reply along with the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities within a maximum period of four weeks. If the respondent fails to file the reply and affidavit within the prescribed time, the Family Court may proceed to decide the application for maintenance on the basis of the affidavit filed by the applicant and the pleadings on record. This means that while the respondent is required to file a reply with the affidavit, the court can proceed in their absence if they fail to comply, effectively allowing the case to move forward without the respondent''''s reply. Therefore, a defendant can file an affidavit without filing a reply, but the court may still proceed on the basis of the applicant''''s materials if the defendant fails to file the reply within the stipulated time.Checking relevance for Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay VS Union Of India...

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay VS Union Of India - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 1172 : Yes, a defendant can file an affidavit without filing a reply. The court order explicitly states that the Union of India, which has not filed its counter affidavit/reply, shall file the same within four weeks. This indicates that filing a counter affidavit is a permissible and recognized form of response even in the absence of a formal written reply. Furthermore, the order specifies that once the counter affidavit is filed, respondents may file their rejoinder(s)/response(s) thereto, confirming that an affidavit can serve as a standalone response mechanism in the procedural framework.

• How to Prove Falls Affidavit - Main Points and Insights

• Proof of Affidavit Validity and Standardization

• Affidavits should be in the usual standard format and properly sworn. Authorities such as police inquiries confirm adherence to standard formats CHITRA WD/O SHRIRAM GHONGADE AND 3 OTHERS vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. PSO, BHATKULI POLICE STATION, TQ. BHATKULI, DIST. AMRAVATI AND 2 ANR - Bombay.

• Execution and Attestation of the Affidavit

• The propounder or maker of the affidavit bears the onus to prove its due execution. Reliance solely on the affidavit’s contents is insufficient; corroborative evidence, such as calling witnesses or verifying signatures, is necessary Mansukhlal Kanji Shah VS Sunita Anant Mehta - Bombay, SHEELA D/O GOPALAN VAIDYAR Versus STATE OF KERALA - Kerala.

• Verification of Signatures and Witnesses

• To establish authenticity, signatures must be verified, and witnesses' identities confirmed. If witnesses are unavailable, proof of their death or absence should be provided, including death certificates or summons to prove their unavailability Basavaramatarakam Memorial Medical Trust, Hyderabad vs Nandamuri Lakshmi Parvathi - Telangana.

• Role of Witnesses and Their Availability

• When affidavits involve attesting witnesses, their presence or proof of death is essential before relying on Section 69 of the Evidence Act. Simply stating witnesses are dead without proof is inadequate Basavaramatarakam Memorial Medical Trust, Hyderabad vs Nandamuri Lakshmi Parvathi - Telangana, BANDIA v. UNGU et al. .

• Legal Burden and Evidence Standards

• The burden of proof lies on the party relying on the affidavit. The evidence must be sufficient to prove the facts claimed, and documents or affidavits do not prove themselves; they require supporting evidence to establish truth LIVE CAPITAL SDN BHD vs PIONEER CONGLOMERATE SDN BHD - Federal Court Putrajaya, Lembaga Kemajuan Tanah Persekutuan (FELDA) & Anor vs Awang Soh bin Mamat & Ors.

• Admissibility and Legal Safeguards

• Affidavits are not admissible as evidence unless attesting witnesses are called to prove the execution, especially if witnesses are alive and capable of giving evidence. If witnesses are unavailable, proof of their death must be provided Tapati Patra VS Swarup Das - Calcutta.

Analysis and ConclusionTo prove a falls affidavit effectively, one must ensure it is in proper format, sworn correctly, and supported by corroborative evidence such as witness testimony or verified signatures. When witnesses are unavailable, their death must be proved through official documents. The burden of proof rests on the affiant or party relying on the affidavit, and courts require concrete evidence to establish authenticity and execution. Simply filing an affidavit without supporting proof or witness testimony is insufficient for legal validation.