Advanced Search Results

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 … the provisions of this Act. The service conditions are as prescribed by the Central Government in terms of Section 6 of the Act. While tenure of service is during the pleasure of the President in terms of Section

Krishna Chandra Chaurasiya Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Service

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 23 and 48; Indian Penal Code; Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes Act

Reported in : 2004(2)AWC1409; (2004)2UPLBEC1784

of the first 12 of following questions you will be liable to be punished as provided in the Border Security Force Act, 1968.'Since at the trial the petitioner was found to be guilty under Section 23 of the B.S.F. Act, 1968 … Constable in Border Security Force and he filled up the prescribed form. While filling up the form on 6.3.2002, he had to give certain informations to the queries as detailed in Part A. In the answer to

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 … Article 20(2) of the Constitution was misconceived and untenable.22. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that Rule 6 of the Border Security Force Rules provides a residuary power so far as the matters not specifically provided

Gouranga Chakraborty Vs. State of Tripura and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : ServiceConstitution

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 11(2), (4), 19, 48, 59 and 141; Border Security Force Rules, 1969 - Rules 6 and 177; Constitution of India - Article 311

Reported in : AIR1989SC1321; JT1989(Suppl1)SC86; 1989(1)SCALE793; (1989)3SCC314; [1989]2SCR271; 1989(2)LC252(SC)

dismissed from service by the Commandant by order dated January 5, 1972 in accordance with the provisions of Border Security Force Act, 1968 and the Rules framed thereunder.6. The Munsiff held that the plaintiff was given reasonable opportunity before the Commandant … February 3, 1972. No relief was granted to him.4. The appellant as plaintiff after serving a notice under Section 80 of the CPC and as no redress was given to him, filed Title Suit No. 33 of

Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. S.S. Ranade

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Service

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 2 and 141; Border Security Force (Seniority, Promotion and Superannuation of Officers) Rules, 1978 - Rules 3, 6, 7 and 9; Border Security Force (Seniority, Promotion and Superannuation of Officers) (Amendment) Rules, 1989; Border Security Force Rules, 1969 - Rule 14A

Reported in : [1995(71)FLR492]; JT1995(2)SC582; 1995(3)SCALE65; (1995)4SCC462; [1995]3SCR773; (1995)3UPLBEC1499

the security of the borders of India and matters connected therewith, are governed by the provisions of the Border Security Force Act, 1968. Section 141 of the Border Security Force Act enables the Central Government, by notification, to make rules for the … 46 5. Additional Deputy Inspector General/ Additional Deputy Director (Rs. 4500-5700 + Special pay of Rs. 200) 38 6. Commandant/Assistant Director : Selection Grade - 185 (Rs. 4500-5700) 223 Ordinary Grade - 38 (Rs. 4100-5300) 7. Second-in-Command

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 … may briefly be stated as follows : The petitioner was a Sub-Inspector (Clerk) in 13 BN, BSF No. 671870641 attached with of S.T.O. Jodhpur in the year 1975 and was working as Accountant-cum-Cashier in that year The

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 … him to under go rigorous imprisonment for one year, dismissal from service and imposition of fine of Rs 65.000/-. The order of the General Security Force Court was submitted for confirmation to the competent authority who confirmed

Sunil Kumar Misra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Subject : Civil

Acts : Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Sections 10, 11, 11(2), 11(3), 11(4), 19 and 62; ;Border Security Rules, 1969 - Rules 20, 20(1), 20(2), 20(3), 20(6), 21, 22, 22(2), 28A, 48, 49, 167, 168, 170 to 176 and 177; ;Border Security Force Rules, 1968 - Rules 20, 21, 22(2) and 177

Reported in : 2005(3)JKJ159

Dias non. This order has been challenged on the ground that no inquiry under Section 62 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 read with rules 170 to 176 of the Border Security Rules, 1969 was held against him. He was … been treated as Dias non. This order has been challenged on the ground that no inquiry under Section 62 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 read with rules 170 to 176 of the Border Security Rules,

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

Ex.Uttam Navik Dalbir Singh Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

under Rule 149 of the BSF Rules, 1969 or by the appellate authority under Section 117(2) of the Border Security Force Act, 1968. In the said case, the Supreme Court had carefully examined the provisions of Rule 149 of the Border … has challenged the disciplinary proceedings of the Coast Guard held against the petitioner from 2nd June, 1997 to 6th June, 1997 and has sought the quashing of order dated 6th June, 1997 passed by the respondent No.3