Advanced Search Results

B.V. Ramnarayan Vs. State Bank of India, Hyderabad and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules - Rule 92; Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 11(2)

Reported in : 1996(4)ALT753; (1997)ILLJ1007AP

in the Border Security Force was dismissed from service by the Commandant acting under Section 11(2) of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 on the ground that he was a deserter, without holding enquiry. Before the Supreme Court, the questions were … principles of natural justice before the impugned action was taken, and no case is made out for interference. 5. Sri E. S. Ramachandra Murthy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, quite vociferously and applying the best

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : ServiceCivil

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 10; Army Act, 1959 - Sections 19; Army Rules, 1954 - Rule 14; Border Security Force Rules, 1969 - Rules 20, 20(1), 20(2), 20(3), 20(4) and 20(5); Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 - Rule 2; Transaction of Business Rules, 1961 - Rule 8

Reported in : AIR2006SC124; [2005(107)FLR840]; JT2005(12)SC515; 2005(8)SCALE397; (2005)8SCC760; 2006(1)SLJ312(SC)

peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their respective costs. Service - Competent Authority - Border Security Force Act 1968, Section 10; Border Security Force Rules 1959, Rules 20(4), 20 (5); Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules 1969

Union of India and Others Vs. Andnd Singh Bisht

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 106; Constitution of India - Article 142; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 307; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 5 and 475

Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)557; AIR1997SC361; (1997)1CALLT41(SC); 1996CriLJ4435; 1996(6)SCALE357; (1996)10SCC153; [1996]Supp5SCR306

Naik in the Border Security Force. For injuring one cadet Raj Kishore Singh, he was tried under the Border Security Force Act, 1968 and was convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to … the respondent even though he was tried by a court martial under the Border Security Force Act and Section 5 of the CrPC has not taken away such benefit. Accordingly, an order was passed on 30th September, 1985

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 … Section 196 of the Criminal Procedure Code.18. It is noteworthy that Sub-section 5 of Section 10E specifically provides that, without prejudice to the provisions of … of the respondents in requiring them to serve on the other side a copy of their application under Section 399(4) seeking leave to maintain a petition under Section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act. The petitioners

Deputy Inspector General, Border Security Force Vs. Ashok Kumar Mishra ...

Court : Kolkata

Subject : CivilConstitution

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 11(2), 74(5) and 115; ;Border Security Force Rules, 1969 - Rules 22, 160 and 161

Reported in : 2005(2)CHN638

not be terminated, by virtue of the powers vested in the said Commandant under Section 11(2) of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 read with Rule 22 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969. It was also observed that considering the

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 … evidence was prepared in accordance with Rule 48 of the Rules and the charge was heard under Rule 51. The respondents refuted the contention of the petitioner that Court of inquiry is a condition precedent for the

Shri Chandram J.M. S/O Shri Jettappa Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Rep. ...

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Service

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 6, 9, 10, 11, 14 to 46, 48, 48(1), 49, 50, 64, 70 and 117; Central Police Act, 1949; Army Regulations; Army Rules; Central Civil Services Pension Rules - Rule 25; Pension Rules - Rules 3 and 25; Constitution of India - Articles 22 and 311

Reported in : 2008(3)KarLJ303; 2007(6)AIRKarR441; 2008LabIC(NOC)83(Kar)

dismissed.34. Petitioner is a Member of the Border Security Force which is a paramilitary force created under the Border Security Force Act, 1968. This Force was part of Central Police Act, 1949. It was given a separate identity as Border Security … that can be awarded by the Security Force Courts, Sections 49 and 50 which read as under:49. Alternative punishments awardable by Security Force Courts - … of the Force, but also for bringing disrepute to the Force which is an offence in terms of Section 40 of the Act3. Such action had been taken as a follow up on the complaint lodged by

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 … 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

Gajendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 46, 47, 47(1), 80, 81 and 141(2); Army Act, 1950; Navy Act, 1957; Air Force Act, 1950; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 307, 323 and 452; Border Security Force Rules, 1969 - Rules 41, 41(1) and 42; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 192, 439 and 475; Criminal Courts and Security Force Courts (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1969 - Rules 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8; Criminal Courts and Court Martial (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1952 - Rules 3 and 4; Constitution of India; Air Force Law

Reported in : 1995CriLJ3347; 1995(3)WLC635; 1995(2)WLN31

the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, whereby he allowed the application dated 23-5-1994 filed under Section 80 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (in short, 'the Act') by the D. I. G., B. S. F., Bikaner (non-petitioner No. 2) and directed

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Dinesh Kumar

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Service

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 14, 17, 46, 64, 70, 70(1), 70(2), 70(3), 70(4), 70(5), 74, 117, 117(2) and 141; Army Act, 1950 - Sections 162, 164 and 165; Border Security Force Rules, 1969 - Rules 99, 99(1) and 133 to 161; Army Rules - Rule 66(1)

Reported in : 2010(2)SCALE396

the High Court directed remand in all the matters to the appellate authority under Section 117(2) of The Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) for rewriting the order, giving reasons in support of the … by the Constitution Bench in the decision in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India : 1990 (4) SCC 594. There also, the question arose as to whether the court martial authorities in case of Army personnel, as