<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2009 (4) TMI 1021 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276198</link>
    <description>An affidavit of examination-in-chief sworn before a notary can be accepted on record as evidence under the Code of Civil Procedure. Order 18 Rule 4 requires examination-in-chief to be filed by affidavit, while Section 139 authorises a notary to administer oath for affidavits under the Code. Read together, these provisions do not confine valid affidavits to those sworn only before court staff or court machinery. The court held that the statutory scheme and the amendment to Section 139 support acceptance of notarised affidavits, so an order rejecting such an affidavit on that ground was inconsistent with the law and was quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2018 15:32:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=540350" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 1021 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276198</link>
      <description>An affidavit of examination-in-chief sworn before a notary can be accepted on record as evidence under the Code of Civil Procedure. Order 18 Rule 4 requires examination-in-chief to be filed by affidavit, while Section 139 authorises a notary to administer oath for affidavits under the Code. Read together, these provisions do not confine valid affidavits to those sworn only before court staff or court machinery. The court held that the statutory scheme and the amendment to Section 139 support acceptance of notarised affidavits, so an order rejecting such an affidavit on that ground was inconsistent with the law and was quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276198</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>