Advanced Search Results

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

Naib-subedar Sethurathinam Vs. Union of India Represented by Its Secre ...

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai

Subject : Land Acquisition

pass a sentence afresh for the offence specified or involved in such findings under the provisions of the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950) or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) or the Air Force Act, 1950, (45 … Officers after the prescribed period of retention in terms of Army Rule 146 and Para 592 of Regulations for the Army 1987. The respondents would … have been grave violations such as pre-trial custody not being set off which is violative of Army Act Section 169-A, non-compliance of Supreme Courts order, not passing any order on the post-confirmation petition and illegally destroying the

Extra Judl.Exec.Victim Families Assnandanr Vs. Union of India and Anr

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

that “a militant or terrorist or insurgent, is an ‘Enemy’ within the aforesaid definition [Section 3(x) of the Army Act, 1950]. and it is the bounden duty of all Army Personnel to act against a militant or a terrorist … v. Tulsiram Patel[61]. and Shivaji Atmaji Sawant v. State of Maharashtra.[62]. Armed rioters are also involved in violence. Section 146 of the IPC[63]. explains rioting as use of force or violence by an unlawful assembly or by any

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 … Report, which also shows that purely in terms of gender gap in economic participation, India ranks 142nd among 146 countries. In terms of overall gender gap - 1292 [2025] 8 S.C.R.Supreme Court Reportswhich also includes education, political

Major General A.K. Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Civil

Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj1039

the provisions of the Army Act, an Act framed by the Parliament for trial of offenders, the said Army Act, 1950 has been enacted by the Parliament in the light of Article 33 of the Constitution of India and … 24.3.2008.11. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a statutory complaint to Central Government at Delhi under Section 27 of the Army Act praying for shifting the venue of trial from Northern Command to any other … and Ors. v. Dev Singh reported in Mil LI AIR 2003 SC 146, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that 'On initiation of the

Madsen Vs. Kinsella

Court : US Supreme Court

Subject : Land Acquisition

use, furnished and maintained by military authority. She was permitted to use the facilities of the United States Army maintained there for persons in its service and for those serving with or accompanying the United States Armed … States Court of the Allied High Commission for Germany had jurisdiction, in 1950, to try petitioner, a civilian citizen of the United States who was … and see United States v. Reiter, 27 Fed.Cas.No.16, 146. [ Footnote 26 ] They did not provide … States without the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. . . ." [ Footnote 18 ] The 1916 Act also increased the nonmilitary offenses for which civilian offenders could be tried by courts-martial. [ Footnote 19 ] … Appendix, infra, p. 343 U. S. 363 . [ Footnote 29 ] Section 211 of the German Criminal Code accordingly was applicable to petitioner on

Air Cmde Mrigendra Singh, Vsm Vs. Union of India, Represented by the S ...

Court : Guwahati

Subject : Education

Parliament by making law, in respect of a member of armed forces, even a person, subject to the Army Act, 1950, and/or the Air Force Act, 1950, cannot be denuded of his right to protect his reputation from being … details of the call records were sought for by respondent No.8 purportedly in exercise of his powers under Section 108 of the Air Force Act, 1950, though he does not, according to the petitioner, have such an … of the Air Force Rules, 1969, which no court can, perhaps, ignore. 146. Article 21 guarantees to every person, including a person subject to the

Union of India and Anr. Vs. Purushottam

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

on two counts for the two respective acts and charged with committing extortion, under Section 53(a) of the Army Act, 1950. Summary of Evidence was recorded under Rule 23, Army Rules and the Respondent was tried by Summary Court … they will be returned to the accused person's corps for preservation in accordance with sub-rule (2) of rule 146. Rule 133 does not empower Deputy Judge-Advocate General as the reviewing authority, but merely confers on it a

Hodel Vs. Indiana

Court : US Supreme Court

Subject : Land Acquisition

achieved. This requirement was among the remedial actions specifically recommended to the House Committee by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps recommended "[a]dvanced submission of mining and reclamation plans to a responsible government agency … 452 U. S. 276 -277; Perez v. United States, 402 U. S. 146 , 402 U. S. 154 -156 (1971); Katzenbach v. McClung, supra, at … challenge to the so-called "prime farmland" provisions and certain general provisions of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (Act). The prime farmland provisions establish special requirements for surface coal mining operations conducted on land … accordingly exceeded its proper role. Pp. 452 U. S. 331 -333. (d) Sections 510(d)(1), 519(c)(2), 508(a)(2), and 522(a), (c),( d), and (e) do not take

State of Uttaranchal Vs. M/S. Kumaon Stone Crusher

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Right to Information

to the aforesaid issue which need to be noted. In The State of Maharashtra and Others vs. Salvation Army, Western India Territory, (1975) 1 SCC 509, this Court had occasion to consider the provisions of Bombay Public … India Territory, (1975) 1 SCC 509, this Court had occasion to consider the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 wherein, two per cent contribution was required to be paid to Public Trust Administration Fund. This Court noticed … Sunder Das v. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee and Bhinka v. Charan Singh).” 146. In event the interpretation as put by learned counsel for the petitioner … of Madhya Pradesh is in question. 3. In exercise of power under Section 41 of Indian Forest Act , 1927 (hereinafter referred to as “1927