Advanced Search Results

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

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Subject : Service

Acts : Border Security Force Rules - Rule 142 and 142(2); ;Border Security Force Act - Sections 18(1) and 80

Reported in : 2003(3)JKJ381

dismissed from service vide the impugned order dated 18.11.1999. This punishment was imposed under section 18(1) of the Border Security Force Act 1968. As far as the commission of offence under Section 376/452 RPC is concerned, the authority i. e. the … of the Act by the Commandant. The procedure adopted by the Summary Security Force Court is prescribed in Chapter IX. Rule 142 deals with general plea of 'Guilty' or 'Not Guilty'. Rule 142 of the Border Security … 376/452 RPC. Challan was presented before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhampur on 6.7.1998, when he was committed for trial to Sessions Judge, Udhampur on the

State of J and K and Another Vs. Lakhwinder Kumar and Others

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Ranbir Penal Code (IPC) - Section 302, 109, 201; Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Section 80, 2(1)(a), 47, 141(1), 141(2); Jammu and Kashmir Criminal Courts and Court Martial (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1983 - Rule 7, 41; Constitution of India - Article 136

judicial custody. He went on to say that in exercise of his discretion under Section 80 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) he has decided to institute proceeding against them before the Security Force … (2) of the Act has made the Border Security Force Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”. Chapter VI of the Rules is in relation to choice of jurisdiction between Security Force Court and criminal court. … He allegedly fired at the instigation of R.K. Birdi, Commandant of the 68th Battalion of the Force. The cause of firing, as alleged by the

State of J and K Vs. Lakhwinder Kumar and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Education

judicial custody. He went on to say that in exercise of his discretion under Section 80 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) he has decided to institute proceeding against them before the Security Force … (2) of the Act has made the Border Security Force Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”. Chapter VI of the Rules is in relation to choice of jurisdiction between Security Force Court and criminal court. … He allegedly fired at the instigation of R.K. Birdi, Commandant of the 68th Battalion of the Force. The cause of firing, as alleged by the

Dr. Santosh Kumar Jha Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

of the enquiry was of no legal consequence. Mr. Sinha submitted that there was no power under the Border Security Force Act, 1968 („BSF Act‟) for the BSF to have recorded the so-called confessional statement of the Appellant and it was … for the said offence by a Security Force Court constituted under Section 64, punishment for a period which may extend to seven years may be … functioning of the BSF. It governs acts of misconduct and offences committed by the members of the BSF. Chapter III of the BSF Act deals with such offences. Section 41(e) describes one such offence when a member

Gouranga Chakraborty Vs. State of Tripura and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : ServiceConstitution

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 11(2), (4), 19, 48, 59 and 141; Border Security Force Rules, 1969 - Rules 6 and 177; Constitution of India - Article 311

Reported in : AIR1989SC1321; JT1989(Suppl1)SC86; 1989(1)SCALE793; (1989)3SCC314; [1989]2SCR271; 1989(2)LC252(SC)

dismissed from service by the Commandant by order dated January 5, 1972 in accordance with the provisions of Border Security Force Act, 1968 and the Rules framed thereunder.6. The Munsiff held that the plaintiff was given reasonable opportunity before the Commandant … the Constitution of India as no opportunity of hearing was given and the procedural safeguards as contained in Chapters VII to XI of the Rules were not followed for arriving at a decision of guilt against the

Border Security Force (B.S.F.) Vs. State of Meghalaya and ors.

Court : Guwahati

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 - Sections 2(2) and 3; Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 4

Matched in: Parties Border Security Force (B.S.F.) Vs. State of Meghalaya and ors.

Balwinder Singh Vs Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Border Security Force

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1969 - Rule 53(2) ; Sections 40, 26, 117, 53, 5575

consider the statutory position with regard to persons subjected to the Border Security Force. Section 70 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (BSF Act hereafter) provides the constitution of a Summary Security Force Court (`SSFC' hereafter). It is permitted under … misconceived and untenable.22. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that Rule 6 of the Border Security Force Rules provides a residuary power so far … the procedure which is to be followed by it is statutorily prescripted under Rules 133 to 161 of Chapter XI of the BSF Rules, 1969. Essential procedural safeguards have been statutorily provided so as to ensure fairness

Ex. Const. Tejbir Singh Vs. Union of India and Other

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

234, 235 and 236 thereof. In the case at hand, the offences complained of have arisen under the Border Security Force Act, 1968, to which, admittedly, the petitioner/accused was subject, and which forms a complete Code as regards the offences, as … trial since the nature of the charges do not conform to the requirements of Rule 53 (1) of Chapter VIII of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 relating to charges and matters antecedent to trial. The relevant … the respondents have violated the provisions of sub rule (4) of Rule 63 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969.7. It is also the case

No.90006506 CT Gajen Gara Goyary Vs. The Union of India, Represented b ...

Court : Guwahati

Subject : Land Acquisition

the authorities. The various punishments awardable by the Security Force Court are specified in Section 48 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the BSF Act ) and apart from dismissal, other punishment options are available under … Thereafter a Summary Security Force Court Proceeding (hereinafter referred to as the Summary Court ) was started under Chapter-XI of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the BSF Rules ). The Summary Court … Director General, BSF rejected the Appeal Through the order dated 4.10.2007 (Annexure-L). 6. The petitioner contends that Head Constable Dwarika Prasad was the custodian of

Headmaster, Poilkav High School, P.O. Edakkulam Quilandy Vs. Murali A. ...

Court : Kerala

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Kerala Education Rules, 1959 - Rules 6 and 10; Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 226

Reported in : AIR1995Ker21

imported. It further held that the same ratio will apply to a petition under Section 117(2) of the Border Security Force Act, 1968. It is also pointed out that Chapter XIII consisting of Rules 167 to 169 of the B.S.F. Rules … by the appellant from two other teachers (Madhusoodanan A.I. and Valsala K.) also.' (Annexures A 5 and A 6) a (5) 'A complaint was received from another teacher (Yamuna) stating that on 27-9-1993 while she was coming