Verified statement is not an affidavit where procedural rules require a sworn affidavit for a stay application.

A stay application under the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 had to be supported by a proper affidavit sworn by the appellant or an authorised agent. An unattested, merely verified statement did not meet the legal requirements of an affidavit, because verification alone could not substitute for the prescribed oath and formalities under the procedural rules and the Code of Civil Procedure. The defect was therefore not cured by filing a verified statement, and the stay application was treated as defective and dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a stay application supported only by an unattested verified statement could be treated as an affidavit under the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, and whether such defect rendered the stay application liable to dismissal.

Analysis: The contents of a stay application were required to be supported by an affidavit sworn by the appellant or its duly authorised agent. The document filed was not sworn before a competent authority and was only in the nature of a verified statement. Reference to the provisions governing affidavits and verification under the Code of Civil Procedure reinforced that a proper affidavit must satisfy the prescribed legal formalities. A verified statement not duly sworn could not be equated with an affidavit.

Conclusion: The so-called affidavit was not a valid affidavit, the stay application was defective, and the stay applications were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a procedural rule mandates that an application be supported by an affidavit, an unsworn or merely verified statement does not satisfy the requirement and cannot cure the defect.

---