Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.29 seconds)The Army Act, 1950
Section 63 in The Army Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 41 in The Army Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Syed Yakoob vs K.S. Radhakrishnan & Others on 7 October, 1963
In Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan & Ors., 1963 SCC OnLine
SC 24, the Apex Court has laid down the limits of the High Court‟s
jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226. The relevant
paragraphs are reproduced below:
Kaushalya Devi And Ors. vs Bachittar Singh And Ors. on 8 April, 1959
Similarly, if a finding
of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded
as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of
certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases,
however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of
fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in
proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that
the relevant and material evidence adduced before the
Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the
impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of
evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be
drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot
be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits
that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts
under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be
legitimately exercised (vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v.Syed
Ahmad Ishaque (1955) 1 SCR 1104 Nagandra Nath
Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals
Assam (1958) SCR 1240 and Kaushalya Devi v.
Bachittar Singh AIR 1960 SC 1168.
Union Of India And Others vs Major A. Hussain, Ic- 14827 on 8 December, 1997
20. Further restricting the interference of High Courts in a properly
convened court martial that has carried out proceedings in accordance
with the procedure prescribed, the Apex Court in Union of India and Ors.
v. Major A. Hussain, 1998 (1) SCC 357, has observed as follows: