Advanced Search Results

Tham Bahadur Gaurang and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : (1984)1GLR429

pressed into service. Now they are charged for committing the offences under Sections 37(b) & 40(a) of the Army Act, 1950. Section 37 reads as under:37. Mutiny - Any person subject to this Act who commits any of the following

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Ex. Kanor Ranbir Singh Sidhu

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Civil

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 19 and 45; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 100 and 101

Reported in : AIR1971All396

service is illegal, without jurisdiction, ultra vires and inoperative. The trial Court on an interpretation of the Indian Army Act, 1950 and relying on S.K. Rao's case reported in 1968 Lab IC 60 (Delhi) held that the charge of … with the Act - Section 19 is independent of Section 45 of the Act. (ii) Second appeal - Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - party requesting for deletion of relief - cannot be raised -

Chandra Mohan Shukla Vs. State of Assam and anr.

Court : Guwahati

Subject : Criminal

I.A. Ansari, J.1. Can an Army authority, in exercise of its powers under Section 125 of the Army Act, 1950, seek, for the purpose of investigation or trial, the custody of a person, who is subject to the … behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Goswami has taken this Court through the provisions of Section 475, Cr. P. C, Sections 125 and 126 of the Army Act, 1950, and also the provisions of the Criminal Courts and

Subhash Chandra Sarkar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Subject : Service

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227; Army Act, 1950 - Sections 41 and 164; Army Rules, 1954 - Rule 25

Reported in : AIR1973MP191; (1972)IILLJ611MP

226 of the Constitution would be able to interfere with the decision of a Court constituted under the Army Act, 1950, subject to the limitations pertaining to interference with decisions of Special Tribunals of course, as provided by Sub-clause … such he could not have been tried by the General Court-Martial. On that contention the petitioner's conviction under Section 304 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code and the sentence of six years' rigorous imprisonment was sought … A Division Bench of the Orissa High Court, presided over by Barman, C. J., and A. Misra, J., in Soubhagya Chandra v. Union of India,

Major Subhash Chandra Sarkar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Reported in : 1972MPLJ449

226 of the Constitution would be able to interfere with the decision of a Court constituted under the Army Act, 1950, subject to the limitations pertaining to interference with decisions of Special Tribunals. Of course, as provided by Sub-clause … such he could not have been tried by the General Court-Martial. On that contention the petitioner's conviction under Section 304 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, and the sentence of six years' rigorous imprisonment was sought … A Division Bench of the Orissa High Court, presided over by Barman, C.J. and A. Mishra, J. in Soubhagya Chandra v. Union of India :

ic-42417 F. Major T.K. Chatterjee Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Guwahati

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Mizoram Liquor Total Prohibition Act, 1995 - Sections 7, 8, 8(1), 24, 45, 50, 51 and 54(3); Army Act, 1950 - Sections 69; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 100, 100(4) and 100(5); Evidence Act; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 107 and 108; Constitution of India - Articles 33 and 226; Mizoram Liquor Total Prohibition Rules

7.6. The respondent authority invoked jurisdiction for trial of the petitioner as provided in Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950. The provisions contained therein provide for punishment of any person subject to this Act who at any place … that the bottles of liquor were seized in contravention of the provisions of Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is argued that the concerned officer did not make any effort

Arshnoor Kaur & Anr. versus the Union of India & Ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Education

Reported in : [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1241

by virtue of the power conferred by Article 33 of the Indian Constitution that Parliament has enacted the Army Act, 1950 - Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950 restricts the Fundamental Right of females to join the Indian Army, except … of tests of male and female candidates is similar, a combined merit list ought to be prepared .......... 100-103 Constitutionally valid interpretation of the 2023 recruitment policy implemented w.e.f. 2024 .......................................... 104 Merit-based selection will improve efficiency

M.Z.H. Khan Vs. Chief of Army Staff, New Delhi and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Service

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 3, 3(4), 26, 27, 56, 56(A), 63, 71, 116, 122, 130, 164(2), 169, 169(1), 169(3) and 169(4); Army Rules, 1954 - Rules 33, 33(7), 34, 34(1), 34(2), 36, 106 to 133, 184 and 203; Constitution of India - Article 22(I)

Reported in : 2001(4)AWC2794; (2001)3UPLBEC2202

three months in civil jail,(b) to be dismissed from service.4. Petitioner filed statutory petition under Section 164(2) of Army Act, 1950, which was kept pending and not decided hence the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 37038 of 1998. … the charge-sheet is dated 12.6.1997 and proceeding of summary court martial was held on 14.6.1997, proceedings at page 100 proves that the court martial proceedings were commenced at 13.15 hours on 14.6.1997. With regard to charges No.

Virendra Sharma Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Service

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 71, 154, 160, 162 and 164(2); Army Rules, 1954 - Rules 34(1), 35(1), 57, 58(2), 58(3), 59, 59-A, 62, 68, 137 and 149; Constitution of India - Articles 21, 32, 33, 226 and 227; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973; Evidence Act; Army Regulation, 1987

Reported in : 2002(1)WLN252

orders thereto and the order dated 4.7.1991 (Annex. 10-A) by which his petition under Section 164(2) of the Army Act, 1950 (for short, 'the Act') has been rejected by the Central Government. (2). The facts and circumstances giving rise … court witness No.1, who supported the prosecution case. Petitioner made the submission in the closing address of the C.G.M. proceedings that he was not given the opportunity to defend himself. Vide order dated 12.10.90, the punishment of

Sepoy Devidutt Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Constitution

Reported in : 1988(1)WLN299

and is not maintainable when a person, belonging to the Force, has been tried and convicted under the Army Act, 1950 (here in after to be referred to as 'the Act') by a Court Martial. It was argued that … him by the Summary Court Martial cannot be said unlawful. Mr. Joshi further submitted that statutory remedy under Section 164 of the Act was available to the petitioner and he failed to avail of it. The writ