Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.35 seconds)The Air Force Act, 1950
The Reserve And Auxiliary Air Forces Act, 1952
Section 26 in The Air Force Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Section 121 in The Air Force Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
The Army Act, 1950
Section 2 in The Air Force Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Air Force Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Sohan Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 15 September, 1983
"4. The proviso to Section 42 lays down that notice to
interested parties to appear and opportunity to be heard are
conditions precedent to passing of an order under Section 42.
The fact that the Additional Director was satisfied that the
respondent did not have an opportunity of being heard due to
his illness, seems to us to amount to a finding that the proviso
could not be complied with so that the previous order could
not be held to be an order duly passed under Section 42 of
the Act. It could be ignored as "non est". The view taken in
Harbhajan Singh's case (supra) would not apply to the
instant case although Section 42 of the Act, does not contain
14 of 21
::: Downloaded on - 23-04-2024 22:46:44 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052666-DB
CWP No. 17312 of 2014 2024:PHHC:052666-DB -15-
a power of review. Orders which are "non est" can be
ignored at any stage."
Amended Writ Petition) Dinesh Singh ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 May, 2021
In Writ Petition No. 166 of 1990 - Nirvair Singh vs Union of
India and others (2001 (3) CLR 442), Bombay High Court has examined
the case relating to the naval staff of Indian Navy and the issue was with
regard to discharge orders passed on expiry of engagement. The Court
10 of 21
::: Downloaded on - 23-04-2024 22:46:44 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052666-DB
CWP No. 17312 of 2014 2024:PHHC:052666-DB -11-
noticed that the concerned petitioners were ready and willing to complete
their 15 years of service but were discharged before they completes 15
years and held as under:-