Advanced Search Results

Colonel B.S. Rai Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Service

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 57 and 164(2); ;Constitution of India - Article 226

Reported in : 136(2007)DLT284

The petitioner Col. B.S. Rai was charged of having committed the following offence under Section 57(c) of the Army Act, 1950 on 14.1.2004:CHARGE SHEETThe accused, IC-34740F Colonel Brijendra Singh Rai of Army Headquarters (Directorate General of Signal Intelligence) attached

Major Anurag Pathak Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Service

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 52, 57 and 71; Army Rules - Rule 149; Evidence Act - Sections 45; Defence Service Regulations; Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)

Reported in : 2007(3)ALLMR228

against him and charges were framed on 18/7/1998 for the offences under Sections 52(f) and 57(a) of the Army Act, 1950. The General Court Martial convicted the petitioner for the first and the fifth charge i.e. under Sections 52(f) … 1998 a Court Martial was ordered against him and charges were framed on 18/7/1998 for the offences under Sections 52(f) and 57(a) of the Army Act, 1950. The General Court Martial convicted the petitioner for the first

Union of India and ors. Vs. R.K. Sharma

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Service

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 34 to 68, 71 and 72; Army Orders - Orders 70 and 84; Army Rules, 1954 - Rules 22, 23, 24 and 149; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 32, 226 and 227

Reported in : AIR2001SC3053; [2001(91)FLR1006]; JT2001(9)SC76; 2001LabIC4007; 2001(7)SCALE70; (2001)9SCC592; 2001(4)SCT828(SC); 2002(1)SLJ323(SC); (2002)1UPLBEC111

coming to the conclusion that the punishment of dismissal was violative of provisions of Section 72 of the Army Act, 1950. Section 72 merely provides that the Court Martial may, on convicting a person, award either the punishment which is … dismissal or such lesser punishment as is mentioned in the Act. The third and fourth charges are under Section 57. They relate to falsifying official documents and making false declarations. On conviction the punishment could be for a

R.K. Anand Vs. Union of India and anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Service

Acts : Army Act, 1958 - Sections 191; Army Rules, 1950 - Rule 16A; Army (Amendment) Rules, 1979; Army Act, 1950 - Sections 191

Reported in : 1991(21)DRJ185

get the benefit of retirement age of 58 and retire on 31 December, 1992.(2) Section 191 of the Army Act, 1950 (for brevity 'the Act') empowers the Central Government, among other things, to make rules for the removal, retirement, … the respondents retiring him from Army service on 31 December, 1990 on his attaining compulsory retirement age of 57 years on 19 December, 1990 This order retiring the petitioner was issued in terms of letter dated 9

Brig. R.P. Singh Vsm Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Civil

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 21, 32 and 226; Army Act, 1950 - Sections 45, 52, 57, 60, 63, 71, 153, 154, 156, 158, 160, 164, 164(1), 164(2), 166, 191, 191(2), 192, 193 and 193A; defense Service Regulation - Regulation 472; Army Rules, 1954 - Rules 2, 22, 59, 68, 68(1), 68(2), 68(3), 68(4), 70, 147 and 160

Reported in : 114(2004)DLT792; 2004(77)DRJ480

to pass an order directing revision of sentence of the General Court Martial under Section 160 of the Army Act, 1950 read with Rule 68 of the Army Rules, 1954.(ii)The statutory authority is bound to take into consideration, a … the accused was found guilty by the Court on seven charges falling under Army Act Sections 45, 52(f), 57(a), 60 and Section 63, which essentially involve moral turpitude. The Court no doubt is not obliged to award

Virendra Sharma Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Service

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 71, 154, 160, 162 and 164(2); Army Rules, 1954 - Rules 34(1), 35(1), 57, 58(2), 58(3), 59, 59-A, 62, 68, 137 and 149; Constitution of India - Articles 21, 32, 33, 226 and 227; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973; Evidence Act; Army Regulation, 1987

Reported in : 2002(1)WLN252

orders thereto and the order dated 4.7.1991 (Annex. 10-A) by which his petition under Section 164(2) of the Army Act, 1950 (for short, 'the Act') has been rejected by the Central Government. (2). The facts and circumstances giving rise … the question does arise whether there has been denial of the opportunity to examine the defence, witnesses. Rule 57 pertains of Plea of no case and provides that at the closing of the case for the prosecution,

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

framed against the petitioner. First is that the petitioner had informed about ORBT of 20 Infantry Division and 57 Mountain Division in 1967 and this was an offence under Section 69 of the Army Act, 1950 read … 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

Shiv Parshad Pandey Vs. C.B.i. Through Director, New Delhi

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(1) and 13(2); Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 3, 3(2), 17, 52, 53, 57, 75, 77, 77(2), 80, 81 and 84; Border Security Force Rules - Rules 41, 45B, 51A, 52, 53, 53(2) to 106 and 170 to 174; Army Act, 1950

Reported in : 2003(51)BLJR934; 2003CriLJ1710; JT2003(2)SC413; 2003(2)SCALE658; (2003)11SCC508; 2003(1)LC640(SC)

: [1996]3SCR785 . In thesaid case considering the similar provision as to thecommencement of a trial in the Army Act, 1950, this Court held :'In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the trialcommences the moment GCM … 5. Before the High Court the appellant had contended in viewof the provisions of Section 52 read with Section 57 of the BorderSecurity Force Act. 1968 (the BSF Act), the appellant cannot beprosecuted before the Special Judge because

Capt. Kulwant Singh Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

3rd July 2001 he was chargesheeted for committing two offences i.e. under Sections 52(b) and 57(a) of the Army Act i.e. dishonestly misappropriating property belonging to the government and in a letter signed by him knowingly making a … Artillery Brigade, an officer holding a permanent commission in the regular Army, is charged with:-Section 52(b) Army Act, 1950Dishonestly misappropriating property belonging to the Government In that he, at Allahabad, on 07 September 1998, having drawn a

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

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Service

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 69, 118, 154 and 164; Army Rules, 1954 - Rule 13 and 13(2A); Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 18, 42, 43 and 57; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 21 and 226; Defence Personnel Law

Reported in : RLW2006(3)Raj1734; 2006(2)WLC452

petitioner next argued that wife of the petitioner, Smt. Anchi Kanwar made petition under Section 164 of the Army Act, 1950 and the competent authority seriously erred in returning the petition without considering it. He contended that Smt. Anchi … Counsel for the petitioner contended that GCM gravely erred in law in ignoring the provisions of Sections 43, 57 and 42 of the Act of 1985 which are mandatory. It is contended that search was conducted by