Court : Supreme Court of India
..... follows: (i) the power of judicial review vested in the high court under article 226 is one of the basic essential features of the constitution and any legislation including the armed forces tribunal act, 2007 cannot override or curtail jurisdiction of the high court under article 226 of the constitution of india (ii) the jurisdiction of the high court under article 226 and this ..... law laid down in l. chandra kumar (supra).15. ms. dwivedi, placed reliance on the observations made in major general shri kant sharma (supra) that, jurisdiction of the tribunal constituted under the armed forces tribunal act is in substitution of the jurisdiction of the civil court and the high court so far as it relates to suit relating to condition of service of the persons .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... supplied) this provides the qualifications, terms and conditions of service etc. of chairpersons and members of the appellate tribunal. this provision shows total non-application of mind because the armed forces tribunal act, 2007 has no provision for an appellate tribunal. in fact, section 6 of the armed forces tribunal act, 2007 itself provides the qualifications for appointment for chairperson and other members and it is not clear what was ..... binding on the high court under article 141 of the constitution of india, allowing the aggrieved person to avail the remedy under section 30 read with section 31 of the armed forces tribunal act.44. the high court (the delhi high court) while entertaining the writ petition under article 226 of the constitution bypassed the machinery created under sections 30 and 31 of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... in that behalf must either be articulated in writing or be available on record, specially when the matter can be considered on merits by a tribunal, with the coming into force of the armed forces tribunals act, 2007. 5 11 in a review petition5 filed by the union of india, the earlier judgment was clarified on 16 february 2017 in the ..... behalf of the appellant has submitted that this would meet the ends of justice. 15 we accordingly allow the appeal and modify the impugned order of the armed forces tribunal in the above terms. the appellant shall stand discharged from service on the completion of the minimum pensionable service with the result that he would be ..... chandrachud, j judgment12 admit. this appeal arises from a judgment of the armed forces tribunal at its chandigarh regional bench dated 7 december 2015. the appellant was enrolled on 29 october 1996 in the 43 armed brigade and was at the material time posted as acting lance dafadar1. it is alleged that on 11 august 2007 while on duty .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... 16 may, 2006 chairman, 26 vaisakha, 1928 (saka)standing committee on defence."14. therefore, it is clear from the scheme of the act that jurisdiction of the tribunal constituted under the armed forces tribunal act is in substitution of the jurisdiction of civil court and the high court so far as it relates to suit relating to condition of service ..... the learned senior counsel for the respondent-army personnel.5. for the determination of the present issue it is necessary to refer the relevant provisions of the armed forces tribunal act, 2007, the power of the high court under sections 226 and 227 of the constitution, and the power of supreme court under articles 32 and 136 ..... of the writ petition on the ground that against the orders impugned a remedy of appeal to the supreme court is provided under section 30 of the armed forces tribunal act, 2007.3. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the union of india submitted that the high court cannot entertain writ petitions under article 226 of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... the retrenched employees were offered re-employment shortly thereafter further evidenced the lack of bona fide intention in the act of retrenchment. the tribunal discarded the re-employment offers as immaterial, as it forced the employees to accept fresh appointment, losing their long-standing service. the orders of termination were set aside ..... complaint before the industrial court, asserting that the strike was illegal, and the employees should be made liable for unfair labour practices. the industrial tribunal by an interim order dated 05.02.2007 directed employees to refrain from obstructing the movement of men, material and vehicles from the parking lots ..... civil appeal no.2393 of 2022 armed forces ex officers multi services cooperative society ltd. ...appellant(s) versus rashtriya mazdoor sangh (intuc) respondent(s) judgment pamidighantam sri narasimha j.1. the appellant is a cooperative society run by ex-officers of the three defence forces, engaged in the business of providing .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... as a sailor without loss of seniority. being aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant filed original application under section 14 of the armed forces tribunal act, 2007 before the said tribunal. by the impugned judgment, the original application has been dismissed. submissions of the appellant3 the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant ..... abhay s. oka, j.1. this is an appeal under section 31 of the armed forces tribunal act, 2007 by which, an exception has been taken to the judgment and order dated 27th august 2013 passed by the armed forces tribunal (for short, the said tribunal ), regional bench, kochi.2. on 31st july 2002, the appellant joined indian navy ..... pointed out the order dated 27th august 2013, passed by the said tribunal by which leave has been granted under sub- section (1) of section 31 of the armed forces tribunal act, 2007 as three questions of general public importance were involved. the first question was whether the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... these orders passed in o.a. as well as in review petition have been assailed by the appellants by way of instant appeal preferred under section 30 of the armed forces tribunal act, 2007.4. we now advert to the seminal facts which have led to the present litigation.5. in the indian navy, the sailors are of two classes, ..... rendering actual service of 10 years in the navy, were drafted into fleet reserve or not.2. the appellants had filed o.a. no.8 of 2013 before the armed forces tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the aft ), regional bench, kochi in which prayer to grant benefit was sought by them. the aft, however, has not accepted the case ..... cause for such termination; and (c) the full period of his service in the indian navy and the indian naval reserve forces. [184a. power to make regulations with retrospective effect. the power to make regulations conferred by this act shall include the power to give retrospective effect, from a date not earlier than the date of commencement of this .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... (iv) any member of denotified tribe subject to the discretion of the state government concerned. (v) any person convicted by a court or tribunal acting outside india under the general or special authority of the government of india of an offence which should have rendered him liable to be classified as ..... on equality, non- discrimination, equality of opportunity, affirmative action, abolition of untouchability, freedom of speech and expression, right to life, and prohibition of forced labour together. this has been done for a special reason. the framers of the constitution conceptualized that without the provisions on the prohibition of discrimination, ..... premeditated violence; (c) serious offences against women and children; (d) serious offences against property; (e) offences relating to the possession of explosives, fire-arms and other dangerous weapons with the object of committing an offence or of enabling an offence to be committed; (f) abetment or incitement of offences falling within .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... to be dismissed vide second impugned order dated 22nd december 2020. 3.12. being aggrieved thereby, the present statutory appeals have been filed under section 22 of the national green tribunal act, 201011.4. we have heard shri a.n.s. nadkarni, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in ca nos. 258- 259 of 2021, shri k. ..... from the date of notification of the 2016 rules.10. shri nadkarni further submitted that the provisions as regards the buffer zones around waste processing and disposal facility came into force in 2017 and as such, would not apply to a plant which was conceived, set up and became 13 hereinafter referred to as the 2016 rules . 11 functional ..... the seiaa and the commencement of the gpp all have taken place prior to 8th april 2016 i.e. the date on which the 2016 rules came into force. as such, we hold that the learned tribunal has grossly erred in observing that the gpp in question was covered by the 2016 rules.35. the next finding of the learned .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... by the high court of punjab & haryana in cwp no.20380 of 2012. under the said order, the high court has set- aside the order passed by the armed forces tribunal, chandigarh1, which has dismissed the appeal of the respondent 1 aft 2 and upheld the findings and sentence awarded by the general court martial2.2. the respondent was first ..... page, the words in my opinion having due regard to the exigencies of public service an officer of equal or superior rank to the accused is not available to act as judge advocate are additional. the high court specifically observed that once a document has been put in the course of transmission by the general officer commanding, andhra ..... is required to be recorded in the convening order. rule 102 unambiguously provides that an officer who is disqualified for sitting on a court martial, shall be disqualified for acting as a judge advocate at that court martial . a combined reading of rules 39, 40 and 102 suggests that an officer, who is disqualified to be a part .....
Tag this Judgment!