Advanced Search Results

3398223 M Sep Jagjit Singh Versus Union of India and Others

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

Matched in: Court Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

Ashit Kumar Mishra vs.union of India & Ors

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

and issues raised by the petitioners is a ‘service matter' as defined in Section 3 (o) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (Act). The petitioners have an alternative remedy as per the Act and should move the Armed Forces Tribunal … SHARMA Through: Dr. Vijendra Mahndiyan & Mr. Puneet Kumar, Advocates Versus ........ Petitioner WP(C).No.7219/2016 & connected matters Page 1 of 13 ........ Petitioner ........ Petitioner Versus With ........ RESPONDENTS ........ RESPONDENTS With SWAMI NATH PRASAD Through: Dr.

C.H. Kodand Rao Vs. Union of India through the AMC Centre and School R ...

Court : Chhattisgarh

Subject : Land Acquisition

disposed off. No order as to cost(s). Constitution of India, 1950 Article 226 Army Act, 1950 Section 91(i) Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 Section 3, Section 14(2) Service Matter Deduction Commanding Officerexercise of power conferred under Section 91 (i) of the Act, … Order on Board 1. Lieutenant Colonel/Commanding Officer in exercise of power conferred under Section 91 (i) of the Army Act, 1950 (for

Devi Saran Mishra Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Criminal

take note of the change in the legal provision as has been introduced under Section 34 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, and the present writ petition should be transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal at Lucknow, which has been … and salient features of the Act are being looked into:Chapter I of the said Act deals with Preliminaries; Section 1 proceeds to deal with short title and commencement; Section 1(2) provides that it shall come into force on

Jagraj Singh (No. 14412115k) Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : Education

Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against an order passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. It is submitted that in view of Articles 136 (2) and 227 (4).besides, Article 33 of the Constitution … view of Articles 136 (2) and 227 (4).besides, Article 33 of the Constitution of India as well as Section 13 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, this Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. … which he has been discharged from service locally under provisions of Rule 13(3) read in CWP No.6991 of 2012 (O&M) [2].conjunction with Rule 13(1).Table Service

Capt. N. Gopalakrishnan (Retired) Vs. Union of India, Rep by the Secre ...

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai

Subject : Service

Matched in: Court Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai

Jugbir Singh Vs. Union of India and ors

Court : Delhi

Subject : Education

into account for his pensionary benefits.5. The petitioner filed an application dated 09.11.2010 under Section 29 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 seeking directions to the respondents to ensure time bound compliance of the order dated 17.11.2009.6. In the meantime, … Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA ORDER % 08.07.2013 1. The present writ petition seeks an order or direction to respondent to pay arrears of pay and allowances/pension

Union of India and ors. Vs. Brigadier P.S.Gill

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Armed Forces Tribunal

Acts : Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 - Sections 30, 31

arises for consideration in these two appeals that purport to have been filed under Section 30 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007.2. The question precisely is whether an aggrieved party can file an appeal against any such final decision or … Supreme Court against the final decision or order of the Tribunal (other than an order passed under Section 19): Provided that such appeal is preferred within a period of ninety days of the said decision or order:

Ex-10329400-L Gdsm Sreenivasa Reddy vs Union of India

Court : Chennai

Application filed before theTribunal is not maintainable, due to the limitation period prescribed under Section 22 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. The petitioner was discharged from service on 31.07.2001, and his appeal was rejected on 13.10.2005. However, the Original … Vs1. Union Of IndiaRepresented By its Secretary To Government Of India, Ministry Of Defence, South Block New Delhi 110 011 2.Chief Of Army Staff Army Head Quarters (AHQ), Defence Head Quarters (DHQ), Integrated Head Quarters (IHQ), New

Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

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 … & Ors Respondent(s) Dr Dhananjaya Y 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 … 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal … law, it was urged that having due regard to the provisions of Section 120 of the Army Act 1950 and the decision of this Court