Advanced Search Results

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

Court : Rajasthan

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 … has committed an offence punishable under the Act, such allegations are required to be reduced to writing. Rule 44 gives an opportunity of hearing to such person by the Company Commander or officer of the equivalent rank.

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. B.N. Jha

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Service

Acts : Border Security Force Rules, 1969 - Rules 16(7), 45B and 46; Constitution of India - Articles 136 and 226; Army Act; Border Security Force Act - Sections 2(1), 5, 14 to 45, 48 and 141; Navy Act; Armed Forces Act

Reported in : AIR2003SC1416; 2003(3)AWC1948(SC); (2003)3CALLT15(SC); [2003(97)FLR1034]; 2003(3)JKJ41[SC]; JT2003(3)SC201; 2003(3)SCALE8; (2003)4SCC531; [2003]2SCR721; 2003(2)SLJ395(SC);

for interfering with the impugned judgment in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.; Border Security Force Act, 1968 Sections 5, 41, 48, 49, 64, 65, 68, 72, 107 and 108 - Border Security Force Rules, 1969 … 108 - Border Security Force Rules, 1969 - Rules 14A, 15, 16, 44, 45B and 46 - The services of a Deputy Commandant in the … the description referred to in that provision;2(1)(h) 'Deputy Inspector-General' means a Deputy Inspector-General of the Force appointed under Section 5;2(1)(n) 'Inspector-General' means the Inspector-General of the Force appointed under Section 5;5. Control, direction etc. (1) The general

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

Court : Delhi

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 … set out in Appendix-IV. The matter is then proceeded with under Rule 44 by the Company Commander in case of a person subject to the

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

Rakesh Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Service

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 21(2), 24, 35 and 46; Army Act; Evidence Act; Border Security Force Rules, 1969 - Rules 44, 45B, 45B(1), 45B(2), 48 and 53(2); Army Rules - Rule 149; Defence Service Regulations

Reported in : 152(2008)DLT663

T.S. Thakur, J.1. The petitioner is serving as Commandant in the Border Security Force. He is facing trial by the General, Security Force hereinafter referred to as GSFC for disobedience of lawful … and for making false allegations against his superiors punishable under Sections 21(2), 24(b) and 35(a) of the BSF Act, 1968. The charges framed against the petitioner read as under:CHARGE SHEET The accused Shri Rakesh Sharma, Second-in-Command, IRLA No. … him, malingering and for making false allegations against his superiors punishable under Sections 21(2), 24(b) and 35(a) of the BSF Act, 1968. The charges framed … under the Act was alleged against any officer or subordinate officer, Rule 44 of the BSF Rules, 1969 required the allegation to be reduced to

P.C. Pande Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Constitution

Reported in : 1978(11)WLN435

working as Accountant-cum-Cashier in that year The petitioner was prosecuted for misappropriating property under Section 30 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (47 of 1968)(hereinafter referred to as the Act'), during the year 1975-76. He was convicted by the General … committed an offence shall be reduced to writing in the form set at in Appendix IV, and Rule 44 provides that in the first instance the case shall be heard by his Company Commander. The witnesses shall

Nawab Khan, Sub [No. 870021695] Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Subject : Service

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 20, 40, 45(B), 46, 48, 89, 107, 108 and 117; ;Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - Section 3; ;Prevention of Corruption Act, 1987 - Section 13(1) and 13(2); ;Border Security Force Rules, 1969 - Rules 45B, 48, 51, 51A, 59, 73 and 167; ;Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 1998 - Section 13; ;Army Act - Sections 52 and 63; ;Evidence Act; ;Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227; ;Army Rules - Rules 22 and 149; ;Defence Service Regulations; ;Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)

Reported in : 2006(2)JKJ255

of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 could not be established and a fresh charge under Section 46 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 for committing offence in terms of Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 came to be

Sub.inspector Gurbachan Singh Vs. Uoi and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

the BSF Act, 1968 to the confirming authority.25. Thereafter the petitioner preferred petition under Section 117(2) of the Border Security Force Act, 1969 to the Director General, BSF, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, which petition was rejected vide … was in the processes of attachment to 87 Bn BSF no action could be initiated as per Rule 44 of BSF Rules nor was he tried/punished for the aforesaid offences. However, the provisions of BSF Rules 44

EX.CT. Dharam Pal Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. The petitioner was enrolled with the Border Security Force on August 17, 1990 as a Constable. In the year 2005 he was posted with the 85th Bn. … up an offence report, in compliance with Rule 43 read with Rule 44 of the BSF Rules, 1969, listing the following charge against the petitioner: … listing the following charge against the petitioner: Place and date of offenceOffenceB.O.P. 24-O Forward 85 Bn. BSF. 16.05.2005BSF Act-1968-Section 16 (c) in that he, at Naka Point No.2 of BOP 24-O Fwd on 16.05.05 at about 21:40

Universal Music India Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 4D, 10A to 10D, 79, 111(4), 237, 397, 398, 399, 399(1), 399(2), 399(3), 399(4), 399(5), 401, 402 and 642; Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 33; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 10; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 86, 92, 92(1) and 92(2); Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 195 and 197; Companies (IInd Amendment) Act, 2003 - Sections 44; Constitution of India - Article 226; Army Act, 1950 - Sections 19; Army Rules, 1954 - Rule 14; Land Acquisition Act - Sections 17(4); Foreign Exchange Regulation Act; Electricity Act, 1910 - Sections 4(1); Border Security Force Act, 1968; Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949; Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - Sections 5(1); Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 11, 11(4),

Reported in : [2008]87SCL51(Delhi)

and legislative intent, the Apex Court held that the authority which disposed of a post-confirmation petition under the Border Security Force Act, 1968 and rules framed there under is not a court and every order passed administratively cannot be subjected to … the power to adjudicate on proceedings under Section 397 was vested in the court. Subsequently, by virtue of Section 44 of the Companies(IInd Amendment) Act, 2003, 'Court' was substituted by the 'Company Law Board' which is empowered to