Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.44 seconds)Captain Harish Uppal vs Union Of India And Others on 27 November, 1972
In Captain Harish Uppal v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1973 SC 258, their Lordships have held that it was not necessary for the confirming authority to give a hearing to the changed officer before confirming the sentence passed.
The Air Force Act, 1950
Section 153 in The Air Force Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Section 162 in The Air Force Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
Major Suresh Chand Mehra vs Defence Secretary (U.O.I.) And Others on 13 November, 1990
30. At the end, it may be stated that the petitioner and his counsel faintly argued that the accusation and the Court Martial proceedings held against the petitioner were outcome of mala fide as there were persons interested in seeing the end of the petitioner's career. This submission need not detain us any longer inasmuch as such vague allegations cannot be entertained unless and until full facts are disclosed along with the facts substantiating the allegations; for an allegation of mala fide can be made easily but is difficult to prove (see Major Suresh Chand Mehra v. Defence Secretary, Union of India, (1991)2 SCC 198).
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Vidya Prakash vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 February, 1988
In Vidya Prakash v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 705, their Lordships have held that an objection not taken before the Court Martial would be an afterthought and would not be entertained in writ proceedings.