Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)
Subedar Major S.N. Thakur vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 20 November, 1998 cites

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

9. We are of the view that in the light of the amendment to the Army Rules 22 and 182 by Army (Amendment) Rules, 1993 on and from 6.12.1993 and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Major G.S. Sodhi v. Union of India, Major General Inderjit Kumar v. Union of India and Others, and Union of India and Ors. v. IC-14827 Majaor A. Hussain, , the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners have no substance, It was not at all necessary to afford any opportunity to the petitioners to remain present in Court of Inquiry proceedings or to afford them any opportunity of cross examining witnesses and to lead their evidence. Court of Inquiry was not convened against them. No action was contemplated or considered necessary against them when Court of Inquiry was convened. It was convened only to look into the complaint of the petitioners and others against their superior officer. Only on conclusion of Court of Inquiry proceedings that recommendation was made to initiate proceedings against the petitioners.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 116 - S R Pandian - Full Document

Major General Inder Jit Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 20 March, 1997

9. We are of the view that in the light of the amendment to the Army Rules 22 and 182 by Army (Amendment) Rules, 1993 on and from 6.12.1993 and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Major G.S. Sodhi v. Union of India, Major General Inderjit Kumar v. Union of India and Others, and Union of India and Ors. v. IC-14827 Majaor A. Hussain, , the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners have no substance, It was not at all necessary to afford any opportunity to the petitioners to remain present in Court of Inquiry proceedings or to afford them any opportunity of cross examining witnesses and to lead their evidence. Court of Inquiry was not convened against them. No action was contemplated or considered necessary against them when Court of Inquiry was convened. It was convened only to look into the complaint of the petitioners and others against their superior officer. Only on conclusion of Court of Inquiry proceedings that recommendation was made to initiate proceedings against the petitioners.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 27 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Union Of India And Others vs Major A. Hussain, Ic- 14827 on 8 December, 1997

11. Proceedings of Court of Inquiry are not admissible in evidence as per Rule 182 of the Army Rules. As noticed above, Court of Inquiry was not convened against the petitioners. It was convened to look into the allegations made in the complaint directed against superior officer of the petitioners. In those proceedings opportunity was afforded to the said superior officer. There was no occasion in those proceedings to afford an opportunity to any one else much less the petitioners, who were complainants and were examined as witnesses. As convening of Court of Inquiry is not sine qua non for initiating proceedings against the petitioners and when Court of Inquiry was not convened against the petitioners, submissions made on behalf of the petitioners have no force. The petitioners admittedly have been served with relevant copies as required under law and charges will now be heard against them in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 22 with full opportunity to them to cross examine the witnesses against them and to call such witnesses and make such statement, as may be necessary, for their defense. We do not find any force in these petitions, which are hereby dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 87 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document
1