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 … 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 … allowances and the maximum pay and should allow a minimum period of 60 days to elapse to enable the person to represent against such fixation.

Mohinder Singh Malik and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Subject : Service

Acts : Border Security Force (Seniority, Promotion and Superannuation of Officers) Rules, 1978 - Rules 9 and 14A; ;Border Security Force (Seniority, Promotion and Superannuation of Officers) (Amendment) Rules, 1998; ;Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16

Reported in : 2003(3)JKJ73

dated 27.5.1998, purportingly issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 141 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968, Rule 9 of the 1978 Rules was amended so as to provide for the age of superannuation of … 141 of Border Security Force Act, 1978.5. Appellant also claimed that his age of superannuation should have been 60 years instead of 57 years as in the case of other central civil servants, looking after the affairs

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

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

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

Union Of India Vs. Jogeshwar Swain

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

of an offence under Section 40 Civil Appeal Nos. 8629-8630 of 2014 Page 2 of 31 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (in short, “BSF Act, 1968”), that is for committing an act prejudicial to the good order and discipline … evidence recorded did not inculpate him. With regard to the first ground, it was pointed out that Rule 60 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (in short, BSF Rules, 1969”) disqualified an officer from serving as

Ex- Ct. Rana Pratap Singh vs.union of India and Anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

was tried vide General Security Force Court on six charges, including four charges under Section 46 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 for committing murder of three Bangladeshi nationals and for attempting to take life of another Bangladesh civilian after … of the General Security Force Court. In addition to factual assertions, the petitioner had alleged violation of Rule 60 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969.9. The aforesaid representation was considered and has been rejected vide order

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 … of Evidence, which greatly prejudiced the petitioner while making his statement in the Record of Evidence. V Rule 60(iii) of the BSF Rules, 1969 disqualifies a person who had taken part in the investigation of the case

Mr P S Venkatesh Vs. The Secretary

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Land Acquisition

‘the said Rules’ for short). These Rules are framed under sub Section (2) of Section 141 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968. It cannot, therefore, be in doubt that the Rules are statutes. The Rule that is germane for consideration … the age of retirement of all the personnel including that of the petitioner was enhanced from 57 to 60 years. It is then the time of retirement of the petitioner got changed from April 2020 to April

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 … rules nor can they be elevated to the position of fundamental rights. 60. It was held by the Supreme Court in A.K. Kripak v. Union … 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