Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.27 seconds)
Kalimul Gazi vs Union Of India And Ors on 30 September, 2024 cites

Balkrishna Ram vs Union Of India And Anr Thr. Its Secretary on 10 August, 2017

15. Even the said argument prima facie, cannot be accepted by this Court, as unless in contemporaneity to the passing of the impugned verdict in the year 2016, the Apex Court through passing any interim orders rather had permitted the High Courts to exercise jurisdiction upon verdicts pronounced by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, thereupons, the remedy then available to the present petitioner, thus was to access the Hon'ble Apex Court rather for his therebys challenging the impugned order. However, he did not do so. Contrarily, subsequent to the passing of the decision by the Apex Court in case titled as Balkrishna Ram Vs. Union of India and another (supra), and, that too in the year 2020, thus after almost five years elapsing since the passing of the impugned decision by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, he has chosen to challenge the said decision made on 12.07.2016 by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal before this Court.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Javed & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 30 July, 2003

In Javed vs. State of Haryana, this Court dealt with the issue in question and held that what was protected under Article 25 was the religious faith and not a practice which may run counter to public order, health or morality. Polygamy was not integral part of religion and monogamy was a reform within the power of the State under Article 25. This Court upheld the views of the Bombay, Gujarat and Allahabad High Courts to this effect. This Court also upheld the view of the Allahabad High Court upholding such a conduct rule. It was observed that a practice did not acquire sanction of religion simply because it was permitted. Such a practice could be regulated by law without violating Article 25.
Supreme Court of India Cites 51 - Cited by 173 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Smt. Sarla Mudgal, President, Kalyani & ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 May, 1995

9. As regard the charge of misconduct in question, it is patent that there is no material on record to show that the appellant divorced his first wife before the second marriage or he informed the Government about contracting the second marriage. In absence thereof the second marriage is a misconduct under the Conduct Rules. The defence of the appellant that his first marriage had come to an end has been disbelieved by the disciplinary authority and the High Court. Learned counsel for the State has pointed out that not only the appellant admitted that his first marriage was continuing when he performed second marriage, first wife of the appellant herself appeared as a witness during the inquiry proceedings and stated that the first marriage was never dissolved. On that basis, the High Court was justified in holding that the finding of proved misconduct did not call for any interference. Learned counsel for the State also submits that the validity of the impugned Conduct Rule is not open to question on the ground that it violated Article 25 of the Constitution in view of the law laid down by this court in Sarla Mudgal vs. Union of India and others. He further submitted that the High Court was justified in holding that the punishment of removal could not be held to be shockingly disproportionate to the charge and did not call for any interference.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 181 - K Singh - Full Document
1