ntempt Petition No 31997 of 1987
IN Civil Appeal No 2277 of 1986
PG NO 563 From the Judgment and Order dated 303
1983 of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No 2585 of 1975
Padmanabha Mahale for the Complainant
M Veerappa for the Accused
The Order of the Court was delivered by SINGH J The complainant has by means of this petition claimed relief for taking action for contempt against the accused for their failure to comply with the orders of this Court dated 147
1986 made in Civil Appeal No 2277 of 1986 and to punish the accused who include the Secretary and Commissioner Government of Karnataka Revenue Department and Tehsildar Land Reforms Koppa Chick  magalur District Karnataka
During the hearing we noticed that the affidavit filed by the complainant as well as the affidavit filed in reply to the contest petition both were not in accordance with the provisions of the Supreme Court Rules or Order 19 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure
Savithramma the complainant has filed affidavit in support of the contempt petition
In paragraph 2 of her affidavit she stated that the statements contained in the contempt petition were true to the best of her knowledge belief and information
In paragraph 3 she has further stated that the affidavit had been read over translated and explained to her and she understood the contents thereof and has further stated that the same were true to her knowledge
The affidavit is clearly vague and general and it does not comply with the requirement of a valid affidavit as laid down in Order XI Rules 5 and 13 of the Supreme Court Rules
The affidavit is defective as it does not indicate as to what facts were true to her personal knowledge information and belief
Order XI Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules lays down that evidence in support of an application may be given by affidavit in the Supreme Court Rule provides that affidavit shall be confined to such facts as the deponent is able of his own knowledge to prove except on interlocutory applications on which statements of his belief may be admitted provided that the grounds thereof are stated
Rule 13 provides that in the verification of petitions pleadings or other proceedings statements based on personal knowledge shall be distinguished from statements based on information and belief
In the case of statements based on information the deponent shall disclose the source of his information
Similar provisions are contained in Order 19 Rule 3 of the PG NO 564 Code of Civil Procedure
Affidavit is a mode of placing evidence before the Court
A party may prove a fact or facts by means of affidavit before this Court but such affidavit should be in accordance with Order XI Rules 5 and 13 of the Supreme Court Rules
The purpose underlying Rules 5 and 13 of Order XI of the Supreme Court Rules is to enable the Court to find out as to whether it would be safe to act on such evidence and to enable the court to know as to what facts are based in the affidavit on the basis of personal knowledge information and belief as this is relevant for the purpose of appreciating the evidence placed before the Court in the form of affidavit
The importance of verification has to be judged by the purpose for which it is required
It is only on the basis or verification it is possible to decide the genuineness and authenticity of the allegations and the deponent can be held responsible for the allegations made in the affidavit
In this Court evidence in support of the statements contained in writ petition special leave petitions applications and other miscellaneous matters is accepted in the form of affidavit filed by the parties concerned
It is therefore necessary that the party stating facts must disclose as to what facts are true to his personal knowledge information or belief
If the statement of fact is based on information the source of information must be disclosed in the affidavit
An affidavit which does not comply with the provisions of Order XT of the Supreme Court Rules has no probative value and it is liable to be rejected
In a matter where allegations of mala fides or disobedience of the Court s order are made against a person or party it is all the more necessary that the person filing affidavit in this regard must take care to verify the facts stated in the affidavit strictly in accordance with the Rules 5 and 13 of Order XI of the Supreme Court Rules
We are constrained to observe that of late affidavit are being filed in this Court in a slipshod manner without having any regard to the Rules
Affidavits are being filed by person who could have no personal knowledge about the facts stated in the affidavit
Deponents of affidavits pay no attention to verification although this court laid stress on this aspect as early as 1952
In State of Bombay vs Purushottam Jog Naik l952 SCK 674 a Constitution Bench considering the importance of verification of an affidavit observed We wish however to observe that the verification of the affidavits produced here is defective
The body of the affidavit discloses that certain matters were known to the Secretary who made the affidavit personally
The verification however states that everything was true to the best of his PG NO 565 information and belief
We point this out as slipshod verification of this type might in a given case lead to a rejection of the affidavit
Verification should invariably be modelled on the lines of Order XIX Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code whether the Code applies in terms or not
And when the matter deposed to is not based on personal knowledge the sources of information should be clearly disclosed
 In the instant case verification of the complainant s affidavit is defective and it would not be safe to proceed on the allegations mentioned in the contempt petition
The matter does not rest here
The affidavit filed on behalf of the accused in reply to the contempt petition is shocking
The Office clerk of the advocate for the accused has filed affidavit on behalf of the accused in reply to the contempt petition
The deponent of the counter affidavit has verified the affidavit saying that the statement of the case of the accused are true and correct which are based on the records maintained in the office of the advocate and based on the instructions received from the clients
Such an affidavit is wholly improper and inadmissible in evidence and liable to be rejected
What reliance can be placed on an affidavit filed by a person sitting at Delhi and that too a clerk of an advocate practicing at Delhi giving reply to the allegations and facts and circumstances existing at Karnataka on the basis of records maintained in advocate s office at Delhi
The practice of clerks of advocates filing affidavits without a proper verification should be deprecated
As matters before the apex court are determined on the basis of the statements contained in affidavits it is the duty of the litigants and the layers to file affidavits in accordance with the rules to assist the Court in administering justice
Since the affidavit filed in Support of the contempt petition as well as the affidavit in reply to the petition do nut comply with Rules
no reliance can be placed on them and both are liable to be rejected
We accordingly reject the same and the contempt petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone
But we give a chance to the parties to file proper affidavits within six weeks
List thereafter


Summary:
 The Emergency Risks Factories Insurance Act 1962 was enacted to provide for expeditious rehabilitation of industrial undertakings in the event of damage in times of war
The Central Government accordingly undertook to insure the factories against war risks
The Act envisaged the promulgation and effectuation of the Emergency Risks Factories Insurance Scheme mandating a compulsory insurance of factories against war risks on payment of prescribed premia
The Director of Emergency Risks Insurance Scheme after giving an opportunity to the appellant to show cause determined the sum of Rs475910900 as balance of premia due from the appellant
The appellate authority the Central Government dismissed the appellant s appeal
The legality of the proceedings so culminating in the said appellate order was assailed by the appellant in the Writ Petition before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh which was rejected
Hence this appeal by special leave
The contentions pressed by the appellant were 1 that Distribution and Transmission lines did not constitute Factory  in the concept of insurable property  under the Act  2 that in ascertaining the value of the insurable property depreciation had had to be granted under the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act 1922 3 and that the Act  was itself a piece of temporary legislation and the notice dated 217 28111968 issued after 1011968 when the legislation had spent itself out by efflux of time was without the authority of law
Dismissing the appeal it was  HELD 1 The inhibitions of the limited import of the expression factory  do not limit the identity of the insurable property  which will have to be ascertained and determined in accordance with the provisions of the scheme 
The Act enables the Central Government to declare that provisions of the Act  and of the scheme  shall apply to assets specified in section 171d which include the whole or a specified part of the distribution and transmission system
The scheme  prepared and promulgated by notification SO 3974 which came into force with effect from 111963 provides among other things that the whole of the Distribution and Transmission Systems shall constitute insurable property  and that the Act  and the scheme  shall be applied to them
220C H 2 The provisions as to depreciation in a taxing law like the Income Tax Act contain elements of incentives and are also informed by considerations of policy of the tax and do not reflect purely economic criteria relevant to the determination of the depreciation
In the instant case the High Court found that the Electricity Supply Act itself provided a formula for working out the allowance of depreciation and the appellant had been adopting that formula for valuation of its properties assets etc
There was therefore no error in principle in applying the standard of depreciation provided in 
221G 222D 3 Whatever be the principles of construction of temporary statutes and the effect of the rights and obligations under them after the expiry of the statute itself the Act  in the instant case contains specific provisions preserving the rights and obligations
For that purpose the Act  invokes the provisions of section 6 of the General Clauses Act
The principle behind section 6 of the General Clauses Act is that all the provisions of Acts would continue in force for purposes of enforcing the liability incurred when the Acts were in force and any investigation legal proceedings or remedy may be instituted continued or enforced as if the Acts had not expired
222F H 223A B Amadalavalasa Cooperative Agricultural  Industrial Society Ltd vs Union of India  at 738 followed