Advanced Search Results

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

- termination - Sections 16, 39 and 71 of Army Act, 1950, Article 226 of Constitution of India, Section 58 of Evidence Act, 1872 and Regulations 16 and 113 of Army Pension Regulation, 1961 - petition against order … 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

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,

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 … Clause (5) thereof provides that if the Court over-rules the plea, it shall proceed with the trial. Rule 58 pertains to examination of the accused and defence witnesses and it provides that in every trial, for the

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

Mukesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Uoi and ors

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

We find that Section 59 of the ITBPF Act, 1992 is para materia with Section 87 of the Army Act, 1950. Section 87 of the Army Act enables a superior military officer to conduct a review of the punishment awarded … authority or jurisdiction to try the petitioner for the second time, once he has been dealt with under Section 58 of the ITBPF Act, 1992.3. To the extent necessary, the facts giving rise to the petition are briefly

Present: Mr. Arun Bansal Advocate Vs. the Central Govt. Through Secret ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : Land Acquisition

may be of relevance to notice here that the provisions of the Act are almost borrowed from the Army Act, 1950 and almost all the provisions are copied verbatim with necessary variation due to change in nomenclature relevant for … OF 200.:{ 17 }: by a criminal court or has been dealt with under section 56 of under section 58, he shall not be liable to be tried again for the same offence by a Force Court or

Lt. Genl. R.K. Anand Vs. Union of India and Another

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 191, 192 and 193A; Army Rules, 1954 - Rule 16A; Army (Amendment) Rules, 1979

Reported in : AIR1992SC763; JT1992(1)SC101; 1992LabIC643; 1992(1)SCALE8; 1992Supp(1)SCC561; [1991]Supp3SCR498; 1992(1)LC341(SC); MANU/SC/0150/1992

The appellant also attempted to invoke certain regulations stated to have been framed under Section 192 of the Army Act, 1950 as contained in the Army Instructions Book (1987 Edition). The High Court, after a critical examination of the … in the letter of 9th May, 1985 he could not be retired before he attained the age of 58 years. The respondents supported the order of retirement placing reliance on the subsequent letter of instructions dated 9th

Union of India and ors. Vs. Naresh Chandra Nath

Court : Guwahati

Subject : Service

Acts : Army Act, 1950 - Sections 52, 123(1) and 164(1); Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227; Air Force Act; Navy Act

on 31.12.1985. Since 31.12.1985 happened to be the date of retirement of the respondent, Section 123(1) of the Army Act, 1950 was invoked. In the trail, besides exhibiting a large number of documents, as many as 11 witnesses were … of this Appeal lie in a narrow compass. 4. The respondent in the rank of Lt. Col. Commanded 58 Forward Medical Stores Depot (FMSD in short) from January, 1981 to September, 1985. He did not resort to

Smt. Ram Murti Devi and anr. Vs. Sh. Raj Kishore and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Motor Vehicles

Acts : Motor Vehicles Act, 1998

Reported in : 2005(84)DRJ243

be seven -- Compensation recomputed accordingly. - 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 … years from nowhere. Counsel urged as on date of accident, mother was 50 years and father was aged 58 years.12. Opposing the enhancement, Shri Tripathi learned counsel for the respondent urged that the age of the parents

P.S. Tomar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Court : Delhi

Subject : ServiceConstitution

Acts : Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 - Sections 98; Constitution of India - Article 226

Reported in : 1997IIAD(Delhi)692; 66(1997)DLT449

at the age of 58 years - 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