Case laws

Ans: The appellate mechanism is also stated to be provided under Sections 30 and 31 in Chapter V dealing with appeals of the said Act i.e., Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.  Section 30 and Section 31 of Armed Forces Tribunal Act,  2007 deals with the appeal to the Supreme Court against the order of armed forces tribunal. 

Ans: Learned counsels fortified their arguments on the basis of observations in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India ,  more specifically in paragraph 42, where the Supreme Court held that the High Courts, under Article 226, have the power of judicial review even in respect of courts martial and the High Courts can grant appropriate relief if the said proceedings have resulted in denial of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution or if the said proceedings suffer from a jurisdictional error or any error of law apparent on the face of the record. x

Ans: The larger issue before the Bench was whether the orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal set up under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 would be amenable to challenge before High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It will be noted that when the concept of tribunalisation was upheld in L Chandra Kumar v. Union of India  that the Court had unequivocally opined that the orders passed by the Tribunals would be subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of Indian Constitution.  x

Ans: High Courts can entertain the challenges  of orders passed By Armed Forces Tribunal : Supreme Court overrules Its Judgment. The Supreme Court overruled its decision in Union of India And Ors. v. Major General Shri Kant Sharma and Anr. which barred the exercise of jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in cases assailing orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal. x

Ans:  Supreme Court of India Union Of India And Ors vs Major S.P. Sharma And Ors on 6 March, 1947 Author: M Eqbal Bench: B.S. Chauhan, J. Chelameswar, M.Y. Eqba These appeals have been filed against the common judgment and order dated 21.12.2000 passed by Delhi High Court in L.P.A. Nos. 4, 43, 139, 148 of 1987, 21 of 1988, 77 of 1993 and 86 of 1994. By the said judgment, the High Court allowed the appeals preferred by the respondents and quashed not only their termination orders but also the General Court Martial (hereinafter referred to as ‘GCM’) proceedings held against Captain Ashok Kumar Rana and Captain R.S. Rathaur.

Ans: A larger bench of the Supreme Court has fully restored the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear the petitioners challenging the decisions and orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) from 2019 to which the Supreme Court restricted in 2015. According to Legal Poll, the decision came as a huge relief to the defense community, which had been almost restricted in 2015 and an AFT was the first and last court at that time.

1. That the contents of para 1 of the Grounds of appeal are denied as the award in question has been passed after consideration of all the submissions made by Appellant as well as Respondent. 2. That, the contents of Para 2 of the grounds of the Appeal are denied being incorrect. The work of the Respondent was stopped by the officials of the Appellant on 05.05.2016 and vide letter dated 09.05.2016, the Respondent informed the Appellant to sort out the matter as soon as possible so that the work can be resumed. It was also stated in the letter that the Respondent shall not be held liable for any delay caused due to conduct of the Bank Officials. At this juncture it becomes pertinent to mention here that the construction work of the Respondent was stopped by the Appellant Officials due to use of different Brands of Building Material as mentioned in the tender documents and in this regard a letter dated 18.04.2016 was issued by the Project Architect of the Appellant to the Respondent aski...