Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (4.43 seconds)
Documents citing Subhash Chandra Sarkar vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 26 July, 1971

Major Parvesh Chander Suri vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 15 July, 1987

39. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Subhash Chandra Sarkar (supra) considered the provisions of Sections 164 and 165 of the Army Act and refused to entertain the petition for a writ of certiorari as the Statute clearly provides for the remedy. It is true that the rule of refusing relief on the ground of alternative remedy does not apply to certiorari to the same extent as it does in the case of mandamus. But that fact may be taken into consideration by the High Court for considering the exercise of its discretion to issue writ of certiorari to quash the order of the General Court Martial/Tribunal. Such a relief should normally be not refused on the ground of availability of alternative remedy if it appears on the face of the proceedings or on undisputed facts that the Tribunal has acted without jurisdiction or has acted in excess of jurisdiction or has acted contrary to the fundamental principles of justice, or fundamental right are affected. In the instant case, there are no such exceptional circumstances and, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders of the General Court Martial. The appellant should have exhausted the available remedy under Sections 164, Army Act.
Gujarat High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Mukesh Son Of Bal Mukund, Heera Lal Son Of ... vs State Of U.P. Through Principal ... on 3 June, 2005

28. The Rajasthan High, Court has examined the validity of the provisions of Sub-Section (3) of Section 172 Cr.P.C. In Subash Chandra v. Union of India, 1988 Cr.L.J. 1077 and held that when in the enquiry 6r trial, everything which may appear against the accused has to be established, and brought before the Court by evidence other than the diary and the accused can have the benefit of the cross-examination of the witnesses and the Court has power to call for the diary and use it, of course not as evidence but in aid of the enquiry or trial, the provisions under Section 172 (3), cannot be said to be unconstitutional.
Allahabad High Court Cites 86 - Cited by 23 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Kulwant Singh (Nk.) S/O Sardar Sadhu ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 24 June, 1991

11. This Court examined the ambit of powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in relation to the members of the Armed Forces in the case of Subhash Chandra Sarkar v. Union of India and Ors., 1972 MPU 449 = AIR 1973 MP 191 and although there was difference of opinion between two Judges on one of the questions arising which was resolved by the third Judge, but the unanimous opinion was that the High Court is empowered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to examine' whether the provisions of the Act and the Rules have been duly followed or not and whether there existed any apparent error of law on record.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 2 - D M Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Rajiv Talwar vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 13 September, 1990

21. The ratio of the decision of the Delhi High Court in Subhash Chander v. Union of India, (1990) 1 Rec Cri R 196, to the effect that where the detenu had given wrong address and was not available at the given address, the delay in serving the detention order was not sufficient to quash the detention order, relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, is not attracted to the facts of the case in hand as herein it is not even alleged that the petitioner had given wrong address. On the other hand, the authorities very well knew the full address of his residence as H. No. 3251, Sector 15D, Chandigarh because they had searched that house and recovered the above referred documents and Indian currency etc. The only explanation given in the return in this regard in para 2 of the reply on merits is that the detenu has resorted to absconding.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors. vs B.N. Jha on 23 March, 2001

43. The Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Subhash Chandra Sarkar Vs Union of India has held that the existence of an alternative and its non-exercise by a petitioner cannot be a bar to the granting of a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the decision of the Special Tribunal in exercise of prerogative powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, although as per Article 227 of the Constitution, that Tribunal may not be considered to be subordinate to the High Court".
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - D Bhandari - Full Document

Jai Industries And Shri Omeshwar ... vs Commissioner Of Customs on 18 May, 2004

4. The learned Sr. Advocate challenged the order of the Commissioner of Customs (adjn) on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and submitted that the Commissioner failed to consider the affidavits of the traders who are regular procurers of P.U. Soles from the appellant M/s. Jay Industries and proceeded only on unilateral investigation conducted by DRI with the traders who purchased P.U. Foam Sheets from the appellant. He relied on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax Bombay, AIR 1956 SC 554 and Bombay High Court decision in the case of Subhash Chandar Nishat v. UOI, 1979 ELT J212 and pleaded that the Commissioner without any investigation and basis has reached the conclusion that the appellants had manufactured only PU foam sheets and not PU soles. The details of manufacture of sole and their sales (cash and credit of PU sole) were submitted by the appellants to the Commissioner which were rejected by him without consideration. These details of cash and credit sale of footwear soles were culled out from the records which were recovered by the DRI on 11.6.94 during the search of the appellants premises and from the records which were subsequently submitted to DRI on 13.6.94. These records were returned to the appellant on 25.4.97 as un-relied upon documents. The Commissioner instead of satisfying himself as to the veracity of the documents directed the appellants to submit the same to DRI for verification and re-investigation. During personal hearing on 25.2.98, the appellant pleaded before the Commissioner that it would lead to investigation of entire case by DRI. The case against appellants should be on the basis of the charges in show-cause notice. The Commissioner without considering these gave a finding in the impugned order that the appellants shied away from the investigation of DRI, and they are attempting to conceal information and hence the details about cash and credit sale of PU soles ought to be rejected without further re-examination. The impugned order instead of establishing as to how the appellant had misutilised the above quantities of TDI and Polyol, the Commissioner erred in presuming that appellant had manufactured the above PU foam solely out of imported TDI and Polyol without taking into account the already existing stock of TDI and Polyol with the appellants. He also pleaded that no procedure has been prescribed under Notification 72/91. Hence, the Commissioner should have taken into account the private documents of the appellants which clearly establish utilization of imported raw-material in manufacture of PU soles. It was also pleaded that Order of the Commissioner goes beyond the charges made out in show-cause notices. The Commissioner without properly understanding sales figure has misapplied the same to reach erroneous conclusion. He therefore, pleaded that the Order of the Commissioner may be considered as a show cause notice and the matter may be remanded to him for re-adjudication of the case.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

N. Nageswara Rao vs The Divisional Commercial Manager, ... on 24 April, 2007

5. Learned Counsel for the applicant strenuously argued that the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are not speaking orders and, therefore, are not sustainable. He further submits that the very fact that the respondents could not produce the record before the Tribunal in spite of several opportunities given to them goes on to show that the records are not available and that is the reason, perhaps, the respondents have not considered the request of the applicant for conduct of inquiry. Learned Counsel for the applicant has relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. (Jabalpur) in W.P. No. 211/2005 decided on 29.9.2006 reported in 2006 (3) ATJ 381 in the case of Subhash Chandra v. UOI and Ors. wherein it was held that in case where Charge sheet for minor penalty was issued and charges were denied by the employee and also requested to hold enquiry and the authorities without conducting an enquiry imposed the punishment of withholding of one increment for a period of one year and no reason was given for either imposing the impugned punishment or for not holding the enquiry, such action on the part of the respondents was not justified and, therefore, quashed the order impugned therein and remitted the case back to the authorities to decide in accordance with Rule 16(1) and the instructions dated 28.10.1985. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that parallel rule to Rule 16(1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is available in Railways as well.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next