Advanced Search Results

Deputy Inspector General, Border Security Force Vs. the State and anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 173, 446, 451, 475, 475(1) and 482; Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 46, 80 and 81; Border Security Force Courts (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1969 - Rules 3 to 9; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 279 and 337; Criminal Courts and Court Martial (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1952 - Rules 3 to 9; Army Act, 1950 - Sections 125 and 126

Reported in : 2002IIIAD(Delhi)433; 96(2002)DLT217; 2002(62)DRJ16

by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, dismissing application moved by the Commanding Officer under Section 80 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (for short, 'BSF Act') read with BSF Courts (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the … of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1952 and the Sections 80 and 81 of the BSF Act are equivalent to Sections 125 and 126 of the Army Act, 1950. She argued that under Section 46 of the BSF Act, offences

Ex. L/Nk Vimal Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Service

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 20, 26, 48, 70 and 117(2); ;Army Act; ;Army Rules - Rules 115, 115(2), 115(2A) and 125; ;Navy Act; ;Armed Forces Act; ;Border Security Force Rules, 1969 - Rules 33(2), 43, 45, 45B, 46, 48(3), 49, 51, 62, 81, 81(3), 101, 101(3), 142, 142(2) and 157; ;Border Security Force Rules, 1965 - Rules 48(3), 49(2) and 49(3); ;Constitution of India - Article 14

(hereinafter referred to 'SSFC' for brevity) finding the petitioner guilty of an offence under Section 26 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to 'BSF Act' for brevity) and the sentence of dismissal from service. The petitioner also assails … guilty. How to follow this procedure is the main crux of the question involved in this case. Rule 125 provides that the court shall date and sign the sentence and such signatures shall authenticate of the same.

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 … be "tonguetied, nervous, confused or wanting in intelligence", (see Pelt v. Greyhound Racing Association Ltd.) [1969] 1 Q.B. 125, and if justice to be done, he must at least have the help of a friend who can

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 … minutes of the proceedings of the trial.' 17. Since Rule 142 of BSF Rules is pari-materia with Rule 125 of Army Act, the ratio of above judgment has full application to this case.18. As noticed above, there

Uoi vs V.P.Sharma

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

age of 57 years instead of 60 years upon their re- employment in the Air Wing of the Border Security Force [hereinafter referred to as AW-BSF‟], on the premise that the posts held by them were civil/non-combatised in nature.2. … Security Force (including Pay and Accounts Division, (illegible) Centre, Airwing and other wings/cells) and BSF Hospitals under BSF ACT, 1968 and BSF Rules, 1969 with immediate effect subject to the following terms and conditions :-Signing Date:23.03.2026 W.P. (C) … form the bedrock of the submissions advanced by the parties. The same are reproduced hereunder:Reserve and Auxiliary Air Force Act, 1952 “25. Liability to be called up for service. Every member of an Air Force Reserve or the … rank of Commandant is 57 years.11.6 Reliance has also been placed on Section 25 of the Reserve and Auxiliary Air Force Act, 1952 to submit

The Uoi & Ors. vs Badri Prasad Prajapati

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

age of 57 years instead of 60 years upon their re- employment in the Air Wing of the Border Security Force [hereinafter referred to as AW-BSF‟], on the premise that the posts held by them were civil/non-combatised in nature.2. … Security Force (including Pay and Accounts Division, (illegible) Centre, Airwing and other wings/cells) and BSF Hospitals under BSF ACT, 1968 and BSF Rules, 1969 with immediate effect subject to the following terms and conditions :-Signing Date:23.03.2026 W.P. (C) … form the bedrock of the submissions advanced by the parties. The same are reproduced hereunder:Reserve and Auxiliary Air Force Act, 1952 “25. Liability to be called up for service. Every member of an Air Force Reserve or the … rank of Commandant is 57 years.11.6 Reliance has also been placed on Section 25 of the Reserve and Auxiliary Air Force Act, 1952 to submit

Uoi & Ors. vs B.N.Chaubey & Ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

age of 57 years instead of 60 years upon their re- employment in the Air Wing of the Border Security Force [hereinafter referred to as AW-BSF‟], on the premise that the posts held by them were civil/non-combatised in nature.2. … Security Force (including Pay and Accounts Division, (illegible) Centre, Airwing and other wings/cells) and BSF Hospitals under BSF ACT, 1968 and BSF Rules, 1969 with immediate effect subject to the following terms and conditions :-Signing Date:23.03.2026 W.P. (C) … form the bedrock of the submissions advanced by the parties. The same are reproduced hereunder:Reserve and Auxiliary Air Force Act, 1952 “25. Liability to be called up for service. Every member of an Air Force Reserve or the … rank of Commandant is 57 years.11.6 Reliance has also been placed on Section 25 of the Reserve and Auxiliary Air Force Act, 1952 to submit

Babu Joseph Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Border Security Force (Subordinate Officers and Under Officers Promotion and Seniority) Rules, 1975 - Rules 7, 8, 9, 13(2), 18(2), 19(1), 20, 119(1) and 129; Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 - Rules 123, 124, 125, 136(5) and 136(6); Central Reserve Police Force (Amendment) Rules, 1967 - Rule 118; Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16; Border Security Force Rules, 1969 - Rule 14A(2)

Reported in : 1990MPLJ417

and it is necessary, therefore, to state clearly the position in that regard at the very outset. The Border Security Force Act, 1968, for short, 1968 Act, takes care to indicate vide section 142(1) the fact of prior existence of the … 'Statewise' and that of Inspectors 'Frontierwise', under Old Rules; but those provisions must be read subject to Rule 125 which is reproduced in the New Rule 9 earlier noted. Both rules bear the same caption, 'Basis of

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

Court : Delhi

Subject : Service

Acts : Service Law; Border Security Force Rules, 1969 - Rules 115(3), 122, 123, 124, 128 and 136(6)

Reported in : 2003(67)DRJ618

of the BSF.' Border Security Force Act, however, was passed by the Parliament in1968. Section 141 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (in short the 'BSFAct, 1968) provides : '141. Power to make rules : (1) The Central Government may, … has to be followed Evidently, use of the word 'seniority' therein can only have reference to old Rule 125 or new Rule 9. Otherwise, it will make no sense in preparing a common list of all candidates

Kamla Devi Vs. Border Security Force, Jodhpur and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Property

Acts : Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 - Sections 3, 4 and 23; Rajasthan Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984

Reported in : AIR1988Raj205; 1988(1)WLN730

J. 1. These two appeals : one by the claimant Smt. Kamala Devi and other filed by the Border Security Force, Jodhpur arise out of the judgment of the learned Civil Judge, Jodhpur dated 24-4-1974 in a reference made … that when the well was purchased by the claimant-petitioner in the year 1968, it was only 50 feet deep as stated by P.W. 1 Shri … Department for boring the well. It was bored to the extent of 125 ft. and then after boring the well, certain amount was spent in … Judge, Jodhpur dated 24-4-1974 in a reference made to him under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act ('the Act' herein). 2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this reference briefly stated