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 … 07.09.2006, the present appellants preferred writ appeal. The Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court found that under Section 116 of the Army Act, the summary court-martial proceedings could be held by the commanding officer of any corps,

Ex. Ln Vishav Priya Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Service

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 34, 37, 40, 41(2), 52, 54, 56, 63, 64(I), 69, 108, 116, 120, 120(2), 120(3), 125, 132, 141, 191, 153, 192 and 239; Indian Army Act, 1911; Armed Forces Act, 2006; Army Rules, 1954 - Rules 39, 39(2), 40 and 102; Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 33; defense Services Regulations - Regulations 9, 381 and 448

Reported in : 147(2008)DLT202

or District Courts Martial (DCM) or Summary General Courts Martial (SGCM) as envisaged in Section 108 of the Army Act, 1950 (Army Act for short).2. In CWP 2511/1992 the Petitioner, Ex. L Nk Vishav Priya Singh, has alleged that … case (supra), the learned Single Judge has considered the scope and ambit of a summary court martial under Section 116 of the Act and has categorically held that the summary court martial cannot take place by transfer of

Chief of the Army Staff and Others Vs. Laxman Giri, Ex Havaldar No. 92 ...

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Service

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 45, 108, 116 and 120 - Rule 130; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 354

Reported in : 2000(1)AWC716; [2000(85)FLR76]; (2000)1UPLBEC868

which can be held by the Commanding Officer of any corps, department or detachment of the regular army. Section 116 of the Army Act. 1950. In the circumstances of the present case, trial by summary court -martia! was … on behalf of the petitioner were that for want of procedure in conformity with Section 120 of the Army Act, 1950, the entire proceedings were bad. At the very outset, this Court places on record that the learned Judge

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 respondents is right in his submission that the aforesaid provision is not attracted for summary court martial. Section 116 of the Act provides that a summary court martial may be held by the Commanding Officer of any

Vidya Parkash Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Service

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 39, 71, 108 and 116; ;Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 21; Army Rules, 1954 - Rule 39(2)

Reported in : AIR1988SC705; JT1988(1)SC284; 1989LabIC1205; 1988(1)SCALE313; (1988)2SCC459; [1988]2SCR953; 1988(1)LC588(SC)

Martial and Army Rule 39(2) does not apply to Summary Court Martial constituted under Section 116 of the Army Act, 1950. It has been further stated that a summary Court Martial may be held by a Commanding Officer of

Mahipal Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : ServiceCriminal

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 116 and 120; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 465

Reported in : 55(1994)DLT176

that the first charge sheet was issued to the petitioner under the provisions of Section 69 of the Army Act,1950, (hereinafter called 'the Act'), which was subsequently amended to Section 63 in the second, third and fourth charge … the trial was not the Commanding Officer (CO) of the petitioner as he belonged to a different Unit. Section 116 and Note5 appended to the Section is of relevance in this regard.(b) Nco or a Sepoy cannot be

Naik Ravi Pratap Singh Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Service

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 71, 80, 110, 116 and 120; Army Rules, 1952 - Rules 22 and 31; Army Regulations - Regulations 8, 9, 16, 19, 23, 24, 30, 44, 52, 53 and 54

Reported in : 1998(4)AWC392

is accordingly dismissed.However, there will be no order as to cost. Service - dismissal - Section 116 of Army Act, 1950, Rules 22 and 31 of Army Rules, 1952 and Regulations 53 and 54 of Army Regulations - charge

Sukhdev Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Service

Acts : Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 - Rule 2; Army Act, 1950 - Sections 3, 4(1), 63, 73, 81(4), 113, 114 and 116(1); Constitution of India - Articles 33 and 352

Reported in : [2000(87)FLR951]; 2000(7)SCALE259; (2000)8SCC492; [2000]Supp4SCR292; (2001)1UPLBEC664

Court considered the nature of the service in the G.R.E.F. and the applicability of certain provisions of the Army Act, 1950 for the purpose of taking disciplinary action against the Officers of the G.R.E.F. In that judgment this Court … the G.R.E.F. on 8-11-1966 and was discharged sometime before 24-11-1972. He joined the Punjab Agriculture University as a Section Officer and on 7-9-1973, in the Municipal Committee, Ludhiana. In the year 1976 the services of the employees … to certain amendments in Sections 3, 63, 73, 81(4), 113, 114 and 116(1) of the said Act. In the above judgment, this Court noticed the

Pradeep Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Service

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 3, 39A, 80 and 116; Army Rules - Rules 6, 84 and 149; Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973

Reported in : 2007(2)JKJ55[SC]; JT2007(6)SC1; 2007(6)SCALE1

months was treated as misconduct and Summary Court Martial was convened in terms of Section 116 of the Army Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). He was charged under Section 39A of the Act by order dated

Union of India Vs. Ranjit Thakur

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 116(1) and 130

Reported in : JT1988(4)SC167; 1988(2)SCALE1618; (1989)2SCC438

appellant therein noticed and dealt with as contention a(i) proceeds the premises that Section 130 of the Indian Army Act, 1950 (Act) stood attracted to the proceedings of the Court Martial which culminated in the imposition of the penalty … 130 would be so attracted, But was only a 'Summary Court Martial' to which by virtue of Section 116(1) of the Act, the applicability of Section 130 is clearly excluded. This position requires to be clarified and