Advanced Search Results

Union of India and ors. Vs. Subedar Ram Narain

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Service

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 3, 40, 48, 71, 73, 113

Reported in : AIR1998SC3225; JT1998(6)SC383; 1998LabIC3530; (1999)ILLJ77SC; 1998(5)SCALE278; (1998)8SCC52; [1998]Supp1SCR616

effect from 17.11.1988 and was then court-martialed under the provisions of the Army Act. He was charged Under Section 40(a), using criminal force to his superior officer, and Section 48 of the Army Act, 1950 for being … ineligible for pension or gratuity in respect of all his previous service on his being dismissed under the Army Act, 1950.2. The respondent was enrolled in the Indian Army on 17.03.1962. He was promoted to the rank of Subedar

Ajai Kumar Roy Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : CriminalConstitution

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 101; Borders Security Force Rules, 1969 - Rule 40; Constitution of India - Article 21

Reported in : 2003CriLJ3999

permission to meet the detenu, but he was not allowed to see him. Under Section 101(1) of the Army Act, 1950 ('the Act' for brevity) it is the duty of the officer taking a person into military custody to … officer, though he may be of a higher rank, engaged in a quarrel, affray or disorder. 9. Rule 40 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 ('BSF Rules' for brevity) provides the rights of a person who

N.K. Dhanraj Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 40

Reported in : (1999)121PLR248

a Soldier in the Indian Army, was awarded the punishment of 'service reprimand' under Section 40(a) of the Army Act, 1950. The order was passed on February 1, 1992. A few months later, the Commanding Officer ordered that 'severe

Ram Nath Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 40

Reported in : 1989(16)DRJ101

to convert ourselves into a court of appeal.(12) There is no force in this petition. It is dismissed. Army Act, 1950 - Sections 40(a), 48 and 130--Held--that the Commanding Officer who is holding the Summary Court Martial is not … was held by the Commanding Officer of the petitioner. Col. M.C.Sebastinl. The petitioner was tried for offences under Sections 40(a) and 48 of the Army Act. The Charge Sheet dated the 25th February, 1988 reads as follows

ic-32704 X Major K.L. Menhdiratta Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Ministry o ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Service

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 40, 109 and 164

Reported in : 1991(4)BomCR320

possession of the quarter of the petitioner. Service - court martial - Sections 40, 109 and 164 of Army Act, 1950 - whether High Court has jurisdiction to deal with matter related to defence service discipline - marked difference … and bona fides of Order cashiering the petitioner, passed on 9-6-1988, by the General Court Martial, constituted under section 109, which has subsequently been confirmed by order dated 12th June, 1989, in pursuance of the provisions under

Ranjit Singh Chaurasia Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Service

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 38 to 68, 71, 72 and 73

Reported in : AIR1976All405

imprisonment as well as dismissal from service The appellant availed of the remedies available to him under the Army Act, 1950, but failed to get any redress. He thereupon filed a writ petition in this Court. The only point … punishments that may be inflicted on conviction for these offences. The appellant was tried for an offence under Section 40(c) for using insubordinate language to his superior officer. The maximum punishment provided for this offence under Section 40

Vijayakumar B. Jiragyal Vs. Chief of the Army Staff and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Subject : ServiceCivil

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 40, 40A, 71 and 73

Reported in : 2005(3)KarLJ550

let me see as to whether the order requires my interference in the given circumstances.9. Army Act of 1950 is an Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to the Government of the regular Army. Section … him. He was charged for using criminal force to his superior in terms of Section 40(a) of the Army Act.1.1 He was punished with the sentence of RI for 28 days with effect from 21-4-1998 to 18-5-1998. On

Lt.-col. Prithi Pal Singh Bedi and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and o ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : ServiceConstitution

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 19(1), 21, 32 and 33; Army Rules, 1954 - Rules 22 to 25, 37, 40, 41, 42, 44, 180, 187 and 187(3); Army Act, 1950 - Sections 7, 8, 113, 125, 191 and 192; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)

Reported in : AIR1982SC1413; 1983CriLJ647; 1982(1)SCALE676; (1982)3SCC140; [1983]1SCR393; 1982(2)SLJ582(SC); 1982(14)LC695(SC); MANU/SC/0233/1982

has also challenged the constitutional validity of Rules 22, 23, 25 and 40 of the Army Rules, 1954 ('rules' for short) as being violative of … been initialled by the officer reported upon is the gravamen of the charge under Section 45 of the Army Act on which the petitioner is called upon to face a trial by the General Court Martial convened under … failed to comply with two pre-conditions incorporated in the proviso to Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1950, the investigation was vitiated and the trial upon such investigation would be bad. The High Court held that

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 … belonged to 15 INF DIV ORD Unit which assertion stands admitted. On 17.4.1998 he was charged under Section 40(a) of the Army Act for using criminal force to his superior officer in that he, at Amritsar on

Chenaram Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Civil

Reported in : 1972WLN1025

the confirming authority or the Central Government while exercising its jurisdiction under Sections 164 and 165 of the Army Act, 1950, to burnout a reasoned order as there is no express obligation imposed by Sections 164 and 165 to … the year 1965 and since then he has been continuously working as Pradhan. A show cause notice under Section 40(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959, was served on the petitioner on 8th of