Advanced Search Results

Union of India and ors. Vs. Dinesh Prasad.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 39(a), 116, 191, 71; Army Rules, 1954 - Rules 31, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 39

On 03.08.2001, Col. A.S. Sehrawat, Commandant, under his signature served a charge sheet under Section 39(a) of the Army Act, 1950 (for short, 'Army Act') on the respondent for the absence without leave for 808 days. The Commandant constituted … court-martial has to follow the procedure provided in these Rules. Arraignment of the accused is provided in Rule 111. Rule 115 deals with general plea of 'guilty' or 'not guilty'. Rule 116 deals with the procedure after

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Ex. Flt. Lt. G.S. Bajwa

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Service

Acts : Air Force Act, 1950 - Sections 2, 7, 41, 41(2), 65, 111 and 125; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19, 19(1), 19(4), 21, 22 and 33; Army Act; Air Force Rules, 1969 - Rules 88, 89, 100, 102, 110, 111 and 125; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)

Reported in : 104(2003)DLT618(SC); JT2003(4)SC505; 2003(4)SCALE494; (2003)9SCC630; [2003]3SCR1092; 2003(3)SLJ288(SC); 2003(2)LC849(SC); (2003)2UPLBEC1479

Naval, Military and Air Forces; any other Armed Forces of the Union, would enable Parliament to enact the Army Act and armed with this power the Act was enacted in July 1950. It has to be enacted by … The Judge Advocate always represents the Chief Legal Advisor in a Court Martial as per the provisions of Section 111. Thus, the prosecution had the aid of a prosecutor as well as a Judge Advocate whereas in the

Lt. Col. B.K. Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Service

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 26, 27 and 33

Reported in : 73(1998)DLT181

in the case of the petitioner. The learned Counsel referred to Sections 26, 27 and 33 of the Army Act, 1950. 11. Section 26 provides for remedy of aggrieved persons other than .officers. The provisions give right to such … the concerned official and those who are guilty must be suitably punished. The learned Counsel referred to page 111 of the typed set, para 7 of the counter affidavit at page 110 and para 5 of the

Ashok Kumar Singh Vs Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

from time to time(b) Notwithstanding above, all members of the Force are also subject to certain provisions of Army Act, 1950 and Rules made thereunder as laid down in S.R.Os. 329 and 330 of 1960."3. Pursuant to a selection … appears that on 20th June, 1987, when the petitioner was posted at 111 Road Construction Company, he had been detailed for driving a Tata Tipper … on the following charge:- " Article 1 That the said Shri Ashok Kumar Singh (G/162705 MT Dvr) of Sec. 1 of 591 Tpt P1 (GREF) while attached with 51 RCC for duty, his vehicle TATA Tipper BA

N.R. Ajwani Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Service

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 18, 19, 63, 69, 117(3), 154, 160(4) and 165; Army Rules, 1954 - Rules 17, 23, 23(5), 82(3) and 147A; Indian Official Secrets Act, 1923 - Sections 3, 3(1) and 5; Army Pension Regulations, 1961 - Regulations 3 and 22; Constitution of India - Articles 1, 11, 14, 19(1), 19(5), 21, 31(1), 33, 53, 74, 74(1), 77, 154, 163(1), 226, 309, 310, 310(1), 311, 311(2) and 356; Air Force Act, 1950 - Sections 18 and 19; Air Force Rules, 1969 - Rule 16; Railway Establishment Code - Rules 148, 148(3), 149 and 149(3); Government of India Act, 1919 - Sections 96B; Constitution of India (Fiftieth Amendment) Act, 1984

Reported in : 95(2002)DLT770

neighbourly relations.' 35. The argument before the learned Single Judge was that order under Section 18 of the Army Act, 1950 had been passed without any justifiable reasons and it is an order of dismissal on account of misconduct

Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee Vs. Uoi and anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

settled.90. In AIR1999SC3833: (1999) 8 SCC375UOI vs. Sadha Singh, the respondent was convicted under Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950 for the offence of murder. The court observed that the Army Act was a special Act which provided … to different communities, of both such communities, as constituting between them a quasi-marital relation.]. Crl Rev.No.443/2009 & Crl.M.A.No.3071/2010 111 373. Buying minor for purposes of prostitution, etc. Whoever buys, hires or otherwise obtains possession of any person

Nripen Sarma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Guwahati

Subject : Service

Commanding Officer that he would be tried by the Summary Court Martial (SCM) for the offence committed under Army Act, 1950 (Section 46A). Copies of the summary of evidence and additional summary of evidence along with the charge sheet were … no answer to the second question--'Are you guilty or not guilty of Court Charge?' The requirements of Rule 111 of the Army Rules 1954 is that apart from the initial charge, the accused shall be arraigned on

G.S. Bajwa Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Service

Acts : Air Force Act, 1950; Air Force Rules - Rule 102

Reported in : 59(1995)DLT742

The case debated on procedure for recording the statement of witnesses in relevance to Court martial under the Army Act, 1950 - The statements were recorded in hand writing in the open Court and retyped it however the original … The Judge Advocate always represents the Chief Legal Advisor in a Court Martial as per the provisions of Section 111. Thus, the prosecution had the aid of a prosecutor as well as a Judge Advocate whereas in the

i.S. Exporters Vs. Y.P. Chopra (Retd.)

Court : Delhi

Subject : Civil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 100 and 151 - Order 12 Rule 6; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 111

Reported in : 108(2003)DLT726; 2004(72)DRJ388

dismissed--Transfer of Property Act, Section 111 - LABOUR & SERVICES Disability Pension: [Vikramajit Sen, Sanjiv Khanna & S.L.Bhayana,JJ] Army Act (46 of 1950), Section 192 & Pension Regulations for the Army (1961), Regulation. 173 Claimant was on casual

Krishna and Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Delhi

Subject : Customs

Acts : Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 111, 112 and 124

Reported in : 2003(159)ELT32(Del)

no merit and same is dismissed. - LABOUR & SERVICES Disability Pension: [Vikramajit Sen, Sanjiv Khanna & S.L.Bhayana,JJ] Army Act (46 of 1950), Section 192 & Pension Regulations for the Army (1961), Regulation. 173 Claimant was on casual … Branch) to the petitioner requiring it to show cause why the goods in question be not confiscated under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, and why penal action should not be taken against it under