Advanced Search Results

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 … this juncture that in the same Rules, Chapter IX deals with the procedure for Security Force Courts. Rule 99, which is included in Chapter IX, is of importance for the decision in these appeals. Before its amendment

Deep Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Subject : Criminal

been given for coming to the conclusion of 'guilty' as against the petitioner. According to Rule 99 of Border Security force Act, 1961, while giving a finding on every charge finding of guilty or not guilty has to be given … have also gone through the record. 5. The petitioner had been tried under the provisions of Border Security Act, 1968 and the Rules framed thereunder. The petitioner is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 40 of

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 … basis of uncorroborated testimony petitioner could be punished(4) Whether as per Rule 99 of the B.S.F.Rules, the respondent was required to give the finding 'guilty … 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

Anil Kumar Rai Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

by the General Security Force Court and the Petty Security Force Court. As per the scheme of the Border Security Force Act, 1908 & Rules thereunder, Rule 99 is mentioned in Chapter 9 which relates to Procedure for Security Force … 1999. By a charge-sheet dated 12th October, 1999, the following charges were issued against the petitioner:First Charge BSF Act 1968 Sec.20(a) Using Criminal Force to his Superior Officer In that he, at BOP Ranian on 4.1.99 at about … authority are para meteria, more particularly in case of Rule 149 and Section117(2) of the Act, with the provisions which were considered in both 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

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 … Inquiry under Section 62 of the Act was ordered by the Commandant vide his No. Estt/ 105/ COI-OSL/ 99/ 9985-87 dated 8-10-1999 to investigate the circumstances under which the petitioner absented without leave. The opinion of the

Ram Ashray Prasad Dwivedi Vs. the Union of India and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Subject : Land Acquisition

petitioner argued that the petitioner is charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 20(a) of the Border Security Force Act, 1968. He refers to the provision of 3 Section 20(a) and argues that the said provision only pertains to

Rama Kant Shukla Vs. Union of India and anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

contention of the respondent on the other hand is that there is no requirement under provisions of the Border Security Force Act and Rules thereunder for the SSFC to give reasons while giving findings of guilty or not guilty and … accused No.860020697 Const. Rama Kant Shukla of Arty Bat (HQ1011BSF Arty Regt), Charged with: CHARGE - I BSF Act 1968, Section 20 (a) ASSAULTING HIS SUPERIOR OFFICER In that he, at 2100 hrs on 21/6/95 at Gun Area Kanzalawan, … the authority not to give reasons. It is noted that though rule 99 (not relating to SSFC but to other courts under BSF Act) was

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. … 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

Balwan Singh S/O Late Sh. Jagdev Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Throu ...

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Subject : Service

Acts : Constitution of India - Article 226

Reported in : 2003(1)JKJ104

in their counter is that the petitioner without exhausting the statutory remedy provided under Section 117 of the Border Security Force Act 1968 read with rule 22 of the Border Security force Rules, 1969, which provides that a person aggrieved by