Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.26 seconds)
J.S. Punia vs Union Of India And Ors. on 15 February, 1995 cites

R.S. Ghalwat vs The Union Of India And Others on 4 June, 1981

(50) I find myself in perfect agreement with the learned counsel for the respondents. It is a well established principle of law as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by the different High Courts that a High Court can interfere with the proceedings of the Court Martial only in those discerning few cases where it comes to the conclusion that the Court Martial has over stepped its jurisdiction or has acted without jurisdiction. The Courts can also interfere when they come to the conclusion that there is a violation of the principles of natural justice. I am tempted here to cite the observations of a division Bench of this Court as reported in R. S. Ghalwat v. The Union of India, (1981 Cri. L.J. 1646) (9). . . "The jurisdiction of the High Court is limited, to only finding out whether there is error of jurisdiction. or it is a case of total lack of evidence. The High Court cannot sit as a Court of Appeal. If there was legal evidence available on which a finding could be given, the sufficiency or otherwise is for the authority to decide and the High Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the Court Martial."
Delhi High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Shyam Kishore vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors. on 1 February, 1991

3.Shyam Kishore v. M.C.D. & Ors., 43(1991) D.L.T 459(14). "IF the court comes to the conclusion that the alternative remedy provided under the Act is not adequate or cannot inspire condense inasmuch as it would amount to an appeal from 'Caesar to Caesar' than the existence of an alternative remedy is no bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution".
Delhi High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Major G.S. Sodhi vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 30 November, 1990

(39) It would also not be out of place to mention here the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court as reported in Major G. S. Sodhi's case (supra) . . . . . . "A combined perusal of all these Rules would go to show that what all that is required is that the delinquent should be apprised of the charges that he has to answer so that he is not caught unaware and handicapped in preparation of this defense. The main question is one of prejudice but in this case the charge-sheet shows that all the details are mentioned and the trial went on and that the petitioner participated in the trial duly. The next grievance Is that these charge-sheets were not duly signed. We are mainly concerned with the final charge-sheet dated 5th October. 1985. In that we find that a!l the details are mentioned elaborately and it is signed by Commanding Officer as well as Col. (Admn.) for the General Commanding Officer. Therefore, even if the tentative charge-sheet is rot signed it does not make any difference"', (40) The next point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the. Commanding Officer and other officers are prejudiced and inimically disposed towards the petitioner as the petitioner has been complaining against them. Thus the petitioner expect a just and fair treatment at their hands. 'Hence she wants this Court to restrain tha Air Force authorities from holding the Court Martial. The contention of the learned counsel, I feel, is devoid of any force. The names of the officers who are to preside over the Court Martial proceedings are as yet not known to anyone. Thus the petitioner I think is not justified in making allegations of mala fide against those whose names are as yet not known. In any case it is a well settled principle of law that in case the petitioner objects to the presence of any officer as presiding officer of the Court Martial cannot preside over the Court Martial proceedings.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 116 - S R Pandian - Full Document
1   2 3 Next