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

Ramesh Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Service

Acts : Constitution of India - Article 226; Army Act, 1950 - Sections 39; Army Rules, 1954

Reported in : 2003(1)AWC536

be relinquished from his substantive appointment of Havaldar. The respondents did not follow the procedure provided under the Army Act, 1950, and the Army Rules, 1954, to reduce him to the rank of Naik.11. Counsel for respondents made a … was relinquished on 26.10.1996 and he was awarded punishment, 'severe reprimand' and 14 days pay as fine under Section 39(a) of the Army Act. He was discharged from service on 31.8.1997 on the ground of his medical category

Ex. Rect. Lachhman Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Service

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 39, 80 and 120(3); ;Army Rule, 1954 - Rules 22, 22(1), 115, 115(2), 115(2A), 129 and 180

Reported in : 2003(1)SLJ237(Delhi)

the charge. Next that though the petitioner was served with a charge sheet under Section 39(a) of the Army Act, 1950, but was not given any opportunity to take help of a legal practitioner as the trial was of

P.C. Kakar Vs. Commandant, Military Hospital, Trimalgiri and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 39, 145, 191 and 192; Navy Act; Air Force Act; Army Rules; Constitution of India - Articles 21 and 33; Medical Service Regulations, 1983 - Regulation 446, 447 and 448

Reported in : 1994(1)ALT1; 1994CriLJ1025

in a civil hospital because of the Military Nursing Service Ordinance (30 of 1943) as amended by the Army Act, 1950. Captain Latha Sharma absented herself from the place of her duty and, therefore, she committed an offence under … Captain Latha Sharma absented herself from the place of her duty and, therefore, she committed an offence under section 39(a) of the Army Act and she got herself admitted in the hospital without obtaining leave. 7. In

Sheel Kr. Roy Vs. Secretary M/O Defence and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Service

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 39, 71 and 116; Army Rules, 1954 - Rule 22; Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 21

Reported in : 2007(2)JKJ64[SC]; 2007(7)SCALE530; 2007AIRSCW4111; JT2007(7)SC485

S.B. Sinha, J.1. Interpretation and application of some provisions of the Army Act 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') and Army Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Rules') arises for … be an eye-wash.(ii) Imposition of two punishments, viz., rigorous imprisonment as also dismissal from service is violative of Section 39 read with Section 71 of the Act.(iii) Appellant having been found to be not fit for being retained

Jay Shiv Kushwaha Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Subject : ServiceConstitution

Acts : Constitution of India - Article 20(2); Army Act, 1950 - Sections 22, 39 and 121; ;Army Rules - Rule 13

Reported in : 2002(3)AWC1969; (2002)3UPLBEC2098

12th November, 2001, after being absent for 53 days; 10 days rigorous imprisonment under Section 39(a) of the Army Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Army Act) was awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner was discharged from service with

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

Anil Nanasaheb Pawar Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Service

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 16, 39 and 71; Constitution of India - Article 226; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 58; Army Pension Regulation, 1961 - Regulations 16 and 113

Reported in : 1997(2)BomCR433

the fact that he had been absent without sufficient cause he was charge-sheeted under section 39(b) of the Army Act, 1950. The charge was to the effect that ' at Misamari while granted annual leave w.e.f. 10th November 1988

Pravat Saha @ Pravat Kumar Saha Vs. Union of India Service Through the ...

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kolkata

Subject : Land Acquisition

imprisonment (RI) by his Commanding Officer under a proper ‘offence report charged under Section 39 (a) of the Army Act, 1950. Therefore, it was, according to him, illegal to punish him again by discharging him from service for the

Dr. Subhendu Sen (Vsm) Vs. Government of India and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 39, 52, 71, 74, 153, 154, 155(2), 157, 158, 160(1), 164(1) and (2) - Rules 68(3) and 105; Constitution of India - Articles 33 and 226

Reported in : 1998(1)ALD773

first three charges were framed under Section 52(b) and the 4th charge was under Section 39(a) of the Army Act, 1950.4. The General Court-Martialproceedings commenced on 22-11-1993 and concluded on 11-3-1994. During the proceedings 32 persons were examined as