Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.33 seconds)The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 120 in The Army Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Section 116 in The Army Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Major G.S. Sodhi vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 30 November, 1990
Further, any violation of the rules does not invalidate
the proceedings of the court martial if no prejudice has been caused to the
accused as held in Major G.S. Sodhi v. Union of India (1991) 2 SCC 382.
Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, trial by Summary Court Martial was
valid.
Director General, Border Security ... vs Iboton Singh (Kh) on 12 February, 2007
In the case of Director General, Border Security Force and Ors. v.
Iboton Singh (Kh), (2007) 1 GLT 903 a Division Bench of the Gauhati High
Court held that if the provisions of the Evidence Act are ignored or are not
taken into account by a SGFC, such non-compliance may compel the writ
court to interfere when it results in gross miscarriage of justice. Hence, if the
W.P.(C) 350/2010 Page 12
decision is reached without taking into consideration a relevant fact or
relevant aspect of law, then the High Court may exercise its power of
judicial review.
Sawai Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 May, 1986
26. On the other hand the Court notes that the material witness, Vivek
Singh, deposed against the petitioner, as did the two other witnesses. The
petitioner even cross examined these witnesses. These facts are undisputed
and a matter of the record; no attempt was made to allege any motive on the
part of the said Vivek Singh, to falsely implicate the petitioner. Sawai Singh
v. State of Rajasthan (1986) 3 SCC 454 highlights that
"a departmental enquiry entailing consequences like loss of job
which now-a-days means loss of livelihood, there must be fair
play in action, in respect of an order involving adverse or penal
consequences against an employee, there must be investigations
to the charges consistent with the requirement of the situation in
accordance with the principles of natural justice in so far as
these are applicable in a particular situation."
Maharashtra State Board Of Secondary ... vs K.S. Gandhi And Ors on 12 March, 1991
In Maharastra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education Vs. K.S. Gandhi and Others (1991) 2 SCC 716, the distinction
between the standard of proof which prosecutions have to satisfy and those
in departmental proceedings was noticed by the Supreme Court. It was held
W.P.(C) 350/2010 Page 14
as follows: