9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Affirmation of applications under Article 226 of the Constitution before a Notary Public. 2. Admissibility of affidavits affirmed before a Notary Public in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Notaries Act, Oaths Act, Negotiable Instruments Act, and CPC. 4. Comparison of provisions under Section 141 of CPC with proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. Judicial controversies regarding the application of Section 141 in proceedings under Article 226. Analysis: 1. The judgment addressed the issue of whether applications under Article 226 of the Constitution can be affirmed before a Notary Public. The Rules of the Court require verification by solemn affirmation, but do not specifically mention Notaries. The petitioner argued that Notaries Act, Oaths Act, and CPC provisions allow for affidavits affirmed before a Notary to be used in such proceedings. 2. The respondent contended that Section 141 of CPC does not include proceedings under Article 226, making affidavits affirmed before a Notary inadmissible. The judgment delved into the functions of Notaries under the Notaries Act, emphasizing their authority to administer oaths and take affidavits, but noted the limitations of such appointments under specific Acts. 3. The judgment discussed precedents where affidavits before Commissioners of Oaths were accepted in specific contexts, but highlighted the absence of specific provisions in the Court's Rules for affirmation before a Notary Public. It also considered the conflicting views on the applicability of Section 141 to Article 226 proceedings. 4. Ultimately, the Court concluded that affidavits affirmed before a Notary Public would not be suitable for use in Article 226 proceedings based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and the absence of specific rules allowing such affirmations. The petitioners were given the option to reaffirm their applications before authorized authorities. 5. Reference was made to a previous judgment by another judge where a similar issue was addressed, highlighting the discretion of the Court to adopt procedures from the CPC if necessary for the sake of justice. The judgment aimed to clarify the admissibility of affidavits in Article 226 proceedings while acknowledging the potential for procedural flexibility in the interest of fairness.
|
