Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 36 (1.26 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India Through Major ... vs Major S.K. Sharma on 29 June, 1987

In The Main Police Station vs State Of H.P. Through on 1 September, 2021

(g). When a person subject to military, naval, or air force law or any other law relating to the Armed Forces is brought before a Magistrate and charged with an offence for which he is also liable to be tried by a court-martial, the Magistrate will not proceed to try such person or to commit the case to the Court of Session unless (a) he is moved to that effect by a competent military, naval or air force authority or (b) he is of opinion for reasons to be recorded, that he should so proceed or to commit without being moved thereto by such authority. -( Union of India v. Major S K Sharma, (1987) 3 SCC 490);
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - A Chitkara - Full Document

Rabin Ch. Sarma And 16 Ors vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 21 July, 2022

He further relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Sri S.K. Sharma reported in (1992) 2 SCC 728 to the effect that if the initial appointment is not made according to the Rules, subsequent regularisation of his services does not entitle an employee to the benefit of seniority. The seniority has to be reckoned from the date of regular appointment and not to be counted from the Page No.# 15/30 date of any stop gap appointment.
Gauhati High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - D Baruah - Full Document

Grindlays Bank P.L.C. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 12 March, 1991

17. He has drawn our attention to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. K. S, Subramanian, and in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Chandra Trivedi, , where the Supreme Court held that if there be any conflict between the views expressed by larger and smaller Benches of the Supreme Court, the proper course for a High Court in such a case is to try to find out and follow the opinion expressed by the larger Benches of the Supreme Court in preference to those expressed by smaller Benches of the Supreme Court which practice, hardened as it has into a rule of law, is followed by the Supreme Court itself.
Calcutta High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Flag Officer Commanding-In-Chief, ... vs Tiju Varghese And Ors. on 21 August, 1996

Similarly in Union of India v. Major S.K. Sharma, 1987 SCC (Cri) 584 : (1987 Cri LJ 1912), the Supreme Court while interpreting Section 475 Cri. P.C. and the Criminal Courts and Court Martial (Adjustment: of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1978 held that the rules have been framed under Section 475, Cri. P.C. and that Rule 3 comes into play at the point where the person has been brought before a Magistrate and charged with an offence. That is the stage, according to the Supreme Court, adverted to in Section 475, Cr. P.C. which refers to a person who "is brought before a Magistrate and charged with an offence" and after the Magistrate has determined that there is a case for trial. Before proceeding further with the case and either proceeding to try the accused or to commit the case to the Court of Sessions the Magistrate must, under Rule 4, give written notice to the .Commanding Officer of the accused and refrain for a period of 15 days from doing any of the acts or making any of the orders in relation to the trial of the accused in Rule 4. It was further held that the policy of the law is clear and once the criminal Court determines that there is a case for trial, and pursuant to the aforesaid rule, delivers the accused to the Commanding Officer or the competent military, naval or air force authority, the law intends that the accused must either be tried by a Court-martial or some other effectual proceedings must be taken against him. It is not in dispute that in the present case the stage has not been reached where the Court could determine that there is a case for trial which will automatically attract the relevant rules under the Criminal Courts and Court-martial (Adjustment of jurisdiction) Rules, 1978. The crime is still pending investigation and the possibility of the investigating agency referring the case as mistake of fact cannot be ruled out. Even if it is assumed that the investigating agency will file a final report against the accused the Court on perusal of the materials collected during investigation may take the view that the materia Is so collected do not make out an offence against the accused. In my view unless and until the criminal Court determines that there is a case for trial issuance of a notice by the Magistrate as contemplated under Rule 4 of the Rules does not arise. Section 475, Cr. P.C. says that when such person is delivered to the Commanding Officer of the unit to which he belongs it will be "for the purpose of being tried by a Court- martial," and if he is so delivered, a statement of the offence of which he is accused will also be delivered to the Commanding Officer. As the Supreme Court observed that the relevance of delivering such statement can easily be understood, for it is to enable the authority to appreciate the circumstances in which a Court-martial is required by the law. At the risk of repetition it is to be stated that the investigation in the above crime is still pending and no report under Section 173, Cr. P.C. is filed for the Magistrate to determine that there is a case for trial. The case has not even reached the stage contemplated by Rule 3 and in my view unless that stage is reached issuance of a notice by the Magistrate under Rule 4 of the Rules is premature.
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chambel Singh, Inspector, Food And ... vs The State Of Haryana Through The ... on 23 September, 1994

Adverting to the conflicting decision taken by the two Division Benches, the counsel urged that the decision taken in Sohan Lal's case (Supra) is, in fact, in consonance with Rule 11 of the Rules and otherwise too in line with the various judgments of the apex Court reference to which has been made in the judgments, notably the decision in Union of India v. S.K. Sharma, 1992(2) SLR-373 and Masood Akhtar Khan and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. 1990(5) SLR SC 639.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 31 - R P Sethi - Full Document

O. Ramachandra Reddi vs The Director, D.R.D.L. And Anr. on 29 January, 1993

7. Before going into the merits of the case, we may state that it is well settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court that a civilian employee in defence services who is paid salary out of the estimates of the Ministry of Defence does not enjoy the protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. It was also held by the Supreme Court that Central Civil Services (C.C. & A) Rules, 1965 provide procedure for imposing the three major penalties that are set out under Article 311(2). When Article 311(2) itself stands excluded and the protection thereunder is withdrawn, there is little that one could do under the C.C.S. (C.C & A) Rules, 1965 in favour of the appellant. The said rules cannot independently apply in part since the rule making power under Article 309 of the Constitution is subject to Article 311, as held by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.S. Submmanian, 1989 (3) SLR 713. In view of the legal position set out above, the appellant is not entitled to the protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution or Central Civil Services (C.C. & A) Rules, 1965.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 21 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next