Advanced Search Results

Sub Ved Prakash Jc-642498k Versus Union of India Through the Secretary ...

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

was argued that this manner of conducting a Court of Inquiry was arbitrary and contravened the provisions of Army Rules and indicated the mala fides of the convening authority. 5. It was contended by the counsel for Respondent

S.K. Chaterji Vs. the Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Service

Reported in : 1994(2)WLC54; 1994(1)WLN100

reported on this 2nd Attachment on 3.1.1986. A Summary of evidence in terms of Rule 23 of the Army Rules was recorded on the above-referred 10 charges against the petitioner, between 13.2.1986 to 5.11.1986 and on conclusion of … fresh charges subsequently added on which no preliminary investigation in terms of Rules 22 and 23 of the Army Rules was conducted, although it was essential. The trial scheduled to commence on 28.9.1987 did not commence owing to

Ex Sep R.S.N.Rajana Versus the Union of India Through Its Secretary Mi ...

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

Subject : Education

09.04.2008 passed by Summary Court Martial (SCM) whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence u/s.52(b) of the Army Act 1950 for committing theft of medicines from Army Hospital (R and R) Delhi Cantt. and also for … of recording of plea of guilt. That plea of guilt was recorded in accordance with the provisions of rules and no infirmity in the recording of that plea of guilt was pointed out. However much thrust was

Gen. Officer Comm. in Chief, Lucknow and ors. Vs. R.P. Shukla (Dead) b ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Service

Acts : Army Rule - Rule 180; Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227

Reported in : AIR2006SC2127; 2006(6)SCALE268; (2006)10SCC294; 2007(1)SLJ49(SC)

matter on merits and accordingly allowed the present appeal as above. Service - dismissal - Rule 180 of Army Rules - respondent found guilty - sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment and dismissed from service - respondent

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Major A. HussaIn (ic-14827)

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Service

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227; Army Act, 1950 - Sections 63 and 191; Army Rules, 1954 - Rules 22(1), 23, 24, 25, 47, 81, 82, 95, 96, 105, 149, 177, 180 and 184

Reported in : AIR1998SC577; JT1997(9)SC676; 1996LabIC581; (1996)ILLJ781SC; 1995(6)SCALE214; (1998)1SCC537; 1998(1)LC165(SC); (1998)1UPLBEC330

the country as these documents reflected deployment of troops along the international border with Pakistan. In accordance with Army Rules, 1954 framed under Section 191 of the Act 'staff court of inquiry' was ordered under Rule 177 to … respondent and it was recommended to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him.8. In accordance with Rule 22(1) of the Army Rules read with Army Order No. 70/84 the respondent was brought before the Commanding Officer on 8-4-1985 and hearing

Brig. (Retd.) R.P. Singh Versus Union of India and Others

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

recommended disciplinary action against the petitioner. 4. Petitioner was consequently attached on 14.02.2002 to 7 Infantry Division, Firozepur. Army Rule 22 was complied with in July, 2002 in which of the 18 charges framed, 3 were dropped … disciplinary action against the petitioner. 4. Petitioner was consequently attached on 14.02.2002 to 7 Infantry Division, Firozepur. Army Rule 22 was complied with in July, 2002 in which of the 18 charges framed, 3 were dropped at

Major General A.K. Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Civil

Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj1039

convening dated 4.9.2007 is a non-speaking order21. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also referred Rule 22 of the Army Rules, 1954 (for short 'the Rules of 1954'), which reads as under:22. Hearing of Charge.- (1) Every charge against … complied with.24. Learned Counsel Mr. Gupta further referred Rules 23, 24, 28, 30, 31, and 37 of the Army Rules, 1954 which read as under:23. Procedure for taking down the summary of evidence.- (1) Where the case is

Ex No. 14496920w (Gd), Son of Kulwant Singh Versus Union of India Thro ...

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

on which the petitioners are aggrieved are given at the succeeding paragraphs. 5. They contend that compliance of Army Rules 23 and 24 has not been done. Whereas, the summary of evidence, in both the cases, was recorded … with. Had such a notice of intention been issued and if the accused were explained their rights under Army Rules 95 and 96, they would have opted for separate trials and could have examined each other in their

Ex-sep Hari Chand Versus Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of ...

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

Court of Inquiry was ordered by the Station Headquarters. The Court of Inquiry violated the mandatory provisions of Army Rules 180 and was illegally constituted. In fact, it never assembled and the petitioner was given no opportunity to

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

has arisen.6. It is necessary to refer to the relevant statutory provisions in the Army Act and the Army Rules, 1954 (for short, 'Army Rules') for consideration of the question raised before us.Section 3(v) defines 'commanding officer' as … to refer to the relevant statutory provisions in the Army Act and the Army Rules, 1954 (for short, 'Army Rules') for consideration of the question raised before us.Section 3(v) defines 'commanding officer' as under:"S.3(v)- "commanding officer", when used