Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Act1: border security force act 1968 section 126 · Page 1 of about 13 results (0.055 seconds)

Pulse this search Log in to save a LexPulse alert for this search

AI Studio

AI Brief on every result

Start a 7-day free trial - 18-section briefs and case chat on any judgment in these results, plus Semantic Search on your next query.

Jan 04 2002

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

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-04-2002

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 … 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 under Sections

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Aug 20 2014

Dr. Santosh Kumar Jha Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Aug-20-2014

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 … Section 13 (1) (e) read with Section 13 (2) of the PC Act without following the procedure under Section 126 of the Army Act, 1950. The Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court discussed the provisions of

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

May 11 2000

Union of India and Another Vs. O.P. Bishnoi

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-11-2000

Subject : Service

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 13; Constitution of India - Article 226; Border Security Force Act, 1969 - Rules 45 and 46

Reported in : 2000VAD(Delhi)937; 2000(54)DRJ264

matter on merits. Investigation into an offence alleged to have been committed by a person subject to the Border Security Force Act 1968 (for short 'the Act') is dealt with under chapters V to VII of the Rules. For the present … learned Single Judge was that the respondent was tried by General Security Force Court on a charge under Section 31(b) of the Border Security Force Act (for short the Act) namely :- without proper authority extract from … Court. 8. Another ground of attack is to the finding that Rule 126 of the Rules had been violated by the Law Officer in rendering

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Feb 26 2002

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

Court : Guwahati

Decided on : Feb-26-2002

Subject : Civil

Acts : Constitution of India - Article 226

the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a petition dated 11th December, 1999 under Sub-section (1) of Section 117-of the Border Security Force Act, 1968, (for brevity, 'the BSF Act') to the Confirming Authority pointing out some irregularities in the proceeding before the … of the BSF Act.3. Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that under Rule 126 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as 'the BSF Rules'), the Law Officer has

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Sep 19 2000

Kundan Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Sep-19-2000

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : 2001(1)WLN135

of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Sections 46, 47, 80 and Section 2 (a) & (d) of Border Security Force Act, 1968, hereinafter referred-to as 'the Act of 1968'. In support of the contention, learned Counsel has heavily placed reliance … martial, had decided to the contrary. In these circumstances, there was no occasion to follow the procedure under Section 126 or Rule 4.28. Another case, relied upon by the prosecution i.e. Balbir Singh's case (supra) is not only

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Apr 26 2000

S.A. Qadir Vs. the Union of India and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Apr-26-2000

Subject : Service

Reported in : 2000(2)WLN635

the appellant is that mens rea is a necessary ingredient of the offence under Section 40 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968. Section 40 reads:40. Violation of good order and discipline-Any person subject to this Act who is guilty of any … for confirmation and promulgation. Chapter X deals with the procedure of Security Force Courts and Incidental Matters. Rule 126 provides powers and duties of a law officer. Thus, it is evident that the B.S.F. Act and the

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Aug 12 2015

Union of India Vs. Virpal Singh

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Decided on : Aug-12-2015

Subject : Education

provided sufficient opportunity of hearing to the respondent, that the Court of Inquiry held u/s 62 of The Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) beside other material before the Commandant was sufficient for the Commandant to … Supreme Court in Satwati Deswal v. State of Haryana, (2010) 1 SCC 126. 8. In our view, the High Court had fallen in grave error … respondent to trial nor were the reports adverse to the delinquent neither the findings of the inquiry under Section 62 of the Act supplied to the respondent. 14. The mere fact that enquiry under section 62 was

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Nov 01 1974

Chand NaraIn Gautam Vs. Smt. Saroj Gautam

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Nov-01-1974

Subject : Family

Acts : Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 9

Reported in : AIR1975Raj88; 1974(7)WLN808

Panchmarhi (M. P.) and last resided together at Chaksu near Jaipur. The husband is now employed in the Border Security Force. 3. The husband presented a petition on February 18, 1969 saying that after marriage he encouraged his wife … to beat her and she suffered in silence. It was in July 1968 that the husband threatened to marry another woman and issued invitations to … Cal 140 Binda v. Kaunsilia, (1891) 13 All 126 and Dadaji Bhikaji v. Rukmabai, (1886) ILR 10 … of all his efforts she did not improve her habits and temperament. His grievance is that the wife acted contrary to 'his wishes, suggestions and directions' and levelled false charges against him of alcoholic intemperance, consumption of … same, aggrieved by which the husband comes up in an appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance. 2. It is not disputed

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jun 29 1970

New Haven Inclusion Cases

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-29-1970

Subject : Land Acquisition

element in the Penn Central System. An interchange track runs from the Port Morris branch line to the border of the Oak Point yard. Before the Commission, the parties submitted five different estimates of the value of … F.Supp. at 800. (Footnote omitted.) Although the extent to which the ongoing deficit operation has impaired the bondholders' security is unclear, it is undeniable that the continued operation of the railroad into the late 1960's, together with … of the New Haven properties. Although the Purchase Agreement "carrie[d] some probative force as to the values of the properties involved, it [was] by no … Penn Central, which was done on December 31, 1968. The bondholders filed objections to the revised evaluation … 212 U. S. 118 , 212 U. S. 126 , 212 U. S. 129 ; Wabash R. … Court sustained the Penn Central merger (389 U.S. 486), it upheld the action of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) in conditioning its approval of the … the questions presented by the complaint herein under Section 5(2) of the Interstate Commerce Act will also

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jun 19 1992

New York Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-19-1992

Subject : Land Acquisition

in "regional compacts" with other States, the obligation to provide for the disposal of waste generated within their borders, and contains three provisions setting forth "incentives" to States to comply with that obligation. The first set of … disposal, even without the prospect of taking title; and since any burden caused by New York's failure to secure a site will not be borne by other States' residents because the sited regional compacts need not accept … Burns ed. 1988). In 1979, both the Washington and Nevada sites were forced to shut down temporarily, leaving South Carolina to shoulder the responsibility of … waste in 31 States, Congress enacted the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, which, among other things, imposes upon States, either alone or … 70-78; Bonfield, The Guarantee Clause of Article IV; Section 4: A Study in Constitutional Desuetude, 46 Minn. … R. 1046, H. R. 1083, and H. R. 1267 before the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free

  • ‹ Prev
  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial