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

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

Ashok Kumar Goel Vs. Assessing Officer.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (1995)53TTJ(Del)303

25-1-1995 Income Tax Act 1961 s.147 - 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 … Analysis: Chhugamal Rajpal v. S. P. Chaliha (1971) 79 ITR 603 (SC), Indian Oil Corpn. v. ITO (1986) 159 ITR 956 (SC); Jamna Lal Kabra v. ITO (1968) 69 ITR 461 (All) and ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal

Gurmej Singh, Cmd (Og) Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, Min. of D ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

information of all concerned:- “In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Army Act, 1950 (XLVI of 1950), and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the late War

R. Santosh Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Service

Acts : Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 302 and 498A; Army Act, 1950 - Sections 80, 91, 92, 93 and 94; Army Regulations - Regulation 51

Reported in : 115(2004)DLT279

Note 2 thereto as appears in the Manual of Indian Military Law read with Section 93 of the Army Act, 1950. According to the respondents the claim of the petitioner for payment of pay and allowances could be conveniently

Commodore Narinder M. Pandit S/O Late Munshi Ram Arjundas Pandit Vs. t ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : 2004(4)BomCR814; (2004)106BOMLR98

shall affect the jurisdiction exercisable by, or the procedure applicable to, any Court or other authority under the Army Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), the Air Force Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957), … No. 3 was without observing mandatory provisions of Regulation Nos. 156 to 159 of the Regulations.(vi) The members of the Court Martial were hand picked … of the petitioners were overruled and the Court Martial proceeded further. The petitioner was arraigned in terms of Section 106 of the Navy Act and the petitioner pleaded not guilty to all the charges.4. The contentions raised

NabiruddIn Ahmed Vs. Central Bank of India and ors.

Court : Guwahati

Subject : CivilBanking

Acts : Army Act, 1950; Capital Issues (Control) Act, 1947 - Sections 3; All India Services (Death-cum Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 - Rule 16(3); Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 - Regulations 4 and 6(7); Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 - Regulations 3.1 and 24; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 420 and 468

violation of the instructions and the persons found responsible for such violation should be suitably punished under the Army Act, 1950.'12. In the instant case, against the show cause dated March 23, 1999, the petitioner submitted his reply … SCC 99 wherein in the last part of the paragraph 8, the Apex Court observed:'While interpreting the provisions Section 21 of the Act, the High Court has lost sight of the general principle of the service jurisprudence

Mahender Yadav vs.central Bureau of Investigation

Court : Delhi

Subject : Criminal

case, the court was concerned with an interpretation of the expression “trial commenced” under Section 123(2) of the Army Act, 1950. Charges for dereliction of duty were laid against the respondent and action against the Army Act was initiated

Tapan Kumar Jana Vs. Calcutta Telephones and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Reported in : (1981)IILLJ382Cal

retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person:(i) who is subject to the Army Act, 1950 (XLVI of 1950), or the Air Force Act, 1950 (XLV of 1950) or the Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934 … requires such extension.9. In D.N. Banerjee v. P.R. Mookerjee 1953 I L.L.J. 159, which is the leading case on the point, the Supreme Court had … It was contended that such termination of service not having been made in accordance with the provision of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he should be deemed to be in service of the Calcutta

Yalla Chandramohan, (Service No.15159749-h) Versus Union of India and ...

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai

Subject : MRTP

recovered, if so, from whom. The Inquiry Officer has failed to strictly adhere to section 130 of the Army Act 1950. The charges framed against the petitioner are also not in conformity with Rule 2 of the Army Rules … place his reliance on another Judgment of the High Court of Gaughati reported in Mil LJ 2002 Gauhati 159 (Sri Bhagaban Talukdar Vs. Union of India and others). The relevant observation in the said judgment is extracted