Advanced Search Results

Shiv Parshad Pandey Vs. C.B.i. Through Director, New Delhi

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(1) and 13(2); Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 3, 3(2), 17, 52, 53, 57, 75, 77, 77(2), 80, 81 and 84; Border Security Force Rules - Rules 41, 45B, 51A, 52, 53, 53(2) to 106 and 170 to 174; Army Act, 1950

Reported in : 2003(51)BLJR934; 2003CriLJ1710; JT2003(2)SC413; 2003(2)SCALE658; (2003)11SCC508; 2003(1)LC640(SC)

appellant.27. In the said view of the matter, these appeals fail and thesame are dismissed. Service Law - Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 52, 53, 75, 77 and 81 - B. S. F. Rules - 41, 45B, 51A, 53, … Court by theimpugned order. 5. Before the High Court the appellant had contended in viewof the provisions of Section 52 read with Section 57 of the BorderSecurity Force Act. 1968 (the BSF Act), the appellant cannot beprosecuted before

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 … by the General Court Martial he was called upon to face the charge of theft punishable under Section 52(a) of the Army Act. He was convicted by the Court Martial. High Court of Gauhati which heard the

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 … as rashness as is necessary to constitute an offence under Section 40 of the Border Security Force Act. 52. A bare reading of these observations shows that the appellant, while making these observations, committed both, (a) omissions

Pravin Bataniya vs Union of India & Anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Right to Information

and has challenged his dismissal from service vide the impugned order dated 30.11.2020 under Section 11 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (the Act) read with Rule 177 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (the Rules) and Rule 22(1)(b)

Pushparajan.C vs Union of India

Court : Kerala

and those cannot stand the scrutiny of law.3. Aggrieved by Ext.P4, the petitioner has invokedSection 117(2) of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 and has preferred Ext.P7 appeal. The petitioner filed Ext.P7 appeal in the month of June, 2022. So far, … Bengal) and on finding guilty, was imposed with the penalty of termination of service.8. The petitioner, thereupon, invoked Section 117(2)of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 and Rule 167(2) of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969, filing … 2023 / 17TH MAGHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 1596 OF 2023 PETITIONERPUSHPARAJAN.C AGED 52 YEARS NO. 902106374 HC (GD) [DISMISSED FROM SERVICE], S/O CHELLAPPAN, AGED 52

Pushparajan.C vs Union of India

Court : Kerala

The petitioner has preferred Ext.P10 appeal beforethe 2nd respondent to exercise its powers under Section 118 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968. Ext.P10 appeal has been received by the 2nd respondent on 30.06.2023. The petitioner has been out of service … THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 23201 OF 2023 PETITIONER: PUSHPARAJAN.C AGED 52 YEARS, NO. 902106374 HC (GD) [DISMISSED FROM SERVICE], S/O CHELLAPPAN "G" COY OF 148 BATTALION, BORDER SECURITY FORCE,

Sukhwant Singh Vs. Union of India

Court : Delhi

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Constitution of India - Article 20(1); Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 98; Border Security Force Rules, 1969 - Rule 48

Reported in : 1996IIIAD(Delhi)77; 1996CriLJ4079; 1996(38)DRJ299

about the said design to his superior officer. Proceedings before General Security Force Court were held under the Border Security Force Act,1968. After affording full opportunity to the petitioner, the proceeding of conviction was submitted. Authority sentenced the petitioner to … prepared. Mr.L.S.Bisht applied to the Inspector General (Head Quarters) B.S.F,, under Rule 52 of the B.S.F. Rules in the prescribed form for issuing a convening … Usha Mehra, J. (1) This petitioner was charged with three offences punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the 'Act of 1988'). The first charge against

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 … 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

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 … pages 51 to 55. On page 51 plea of guilty is recorded in the form of Question-Answer. Page 52 is the charge-sheet wherein charge under Section 18(1) of BSF Act 1968 has been framed against the petitioner.

Satnarain Singh Vs. Union of India and Anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Education

posted in 52 Battalion, BSF on January 06, 2009. During February 2011 the petitioner was deployed at Indo-Bangladesh Border at BOP Rajanagar of ‘A’ Coy of 52 Battalion BSF when certain cases against unit personnel were noticed … preparation of record of evidence. On considering the ROE the petitioner was directed to be tried at Summary Security Force Court. Chargesheet was drawn and petitioner was charged as under :“BSF ACT-1968 COMMITTING A CIVIL OFFENCE, THAT SECTION-46