Court : Delhi
..... detailed order dated 26th september, 2011, adjudication of the petitioners objection premised on section 122 of the army act 1950 escaped notice.7. the petitioner has thereafter filed a review petition under section 14(f) of the arms forces tribunal act, 2007 on 27th july, 2011.8. this objection has been detailed in para 8 of the review application ..... 23rd may, 2011 and 26th september, 2011 are hereby set aside and quashed and the matter is remanded back to the armed forces tribunal for consideration qua the objection of the petitioner based on section 122 of the army act, 1950. (ii) we make it clear that we have not opined on the merits of the other objection of ..... grounds of challenge is that legal issue of limitation under section 122 of the army act 1950 and violation of rule 180 of the army rules, 1954 as one of the grounds though noticed in the order dated 23rd may, 2011 by armed forces tribunal was not adjudicated upon. we are, therefore, confining the present order for consideration .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... etc. (emphasis supplied) 15. while the petitioner has placed reliance on para 38(a), the respondents have relied on para 38(f) afore-noticed both before the armed forces tribunal as well as in the present proceedings. it is noteworthy that sub para (a) only states that censure will be considered only once. the instant case is concerned ..... to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service under section 20(3) of the air force act, 1950 read in conjunction with rule 18 of the air force rules, 1969, on account of blameworthiness for the above allegations. the petitioner submitted a preliminary as well as a detailed reply to ..... e) also stipulates that airmen who have incurred any red ink entry in the sheet roll due to lack of integrity, moral turpitude, financial irregularities or such other act of misdemeanour which in the opinion of commanding officer make them unfit for commissioning, shall not be considered for commissioning.25. it is trite that merely because a .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
..... . union of india and ors. passed in o.a. no.55/2012 decided on 17.02.2012, wherein the tribunal has discussed the provision of section 22 of the armed forces tribunal act, 2007. 23. on the similar facts, in cases of risaldar ram karan singh vs. union of india decided on ..... 21.09.2011 in t.a. no.229/2009 and rifleman ram bahadur thapa vs. union of india and ors. in o.a. no.176/2011 decided on 19.10.2011, the same view was taken by this tribunal ..... 1. the oa no.68/2010 was filed in the armed forces tribunal on 02.02.2010. 2. vide this petition, the applicant has sought quashing and setting aside of ..... . learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the impugned order dated 31.05.2001 also violates para 424(c) of the regulations for the armed forces, 1983 which reads as under:- rule 424(c): release on medical grounds: (i) an officer who is found by a medical board to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
..... have considered all these judgments and bestowed our best of consideration. all the tribunals functioning all over the india are creation of statute under the armed forces tribunal act, 2007. they are all statutory tribunals and they are bound by statutory provisions. section 22 of the armed forces tribunal act, 2007 reads as under; 22. limitation (1) the tribunal shall not admit an application (a) in a case where a final ..... satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. section 21 of the central administrative tribunal act is para material with that of section 22 of the armed forces tribunal act 2007. as such, decision of honble supreme court given in the case of d.c.s. negi versus union of india and ors. (supra) squarely covers this case. in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
..... at the relevant time when the writ petitions were dismissed, the armed forces tribunal act 2007 was not in force and the high courts have no jurisdiction to make re-appraisal of the evidence. in view of section 15 of the armed forces tribunal act 2007, the tribunal can make appraisal of the evidence. since the rights of the ..... appellants were adversely affected and as there was no such provision for making re-appraisal of the evidence, section 25 of the armed forces tribunal (procedure) rules 2007 gives unfettered powers to this tribunal to issue appropriate ..... judgment under specific conditions. we do not find any justified reason to revive the earlier judgment in exercise of the powers under rule 22 of the armed forces tribunal (procedure) rules, 2008. 12. it has next been argued by learned counsel for the appellants that the effect emanating from the decisions given .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india on the same issue may be barred but not filing an independent petition under section 14 of the armed forces tribunal act, 2007, which provides the complete mechanism to adjudicate the grievances raised by the petitioner concerning the said two acrs and also the acrs covering the period from ..... code of civil procedure, 1908 will not come in the way of the petitioner to seek his remedy by filing the petition under section 14 of the armed forces tribunal act, 2007 under which an independent legal remedy was available to him to challenge the correctness and validity of the two acrs for the period 1.9.2002 ..... made by the respondents at a subsequent stage. we also cannot lose sight of the fact that the petition was filed before the learned armed forces tribunal in the year 2013, although the armed forces tribunal had come into being in the year 2008.7. in view of the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... wp(c)no.5888/2001). on coming into force of the armed forces tribunal act, 2007, this writ petition was transferred for adjudication to the armed forces tribunal, principal bench, new delhi and it came to be registered as t.a.no.39/2010.4. the armed forces tribunal heard the matter and allowed the petition vide ..... its judgment dated 18th february, 2013 setting aside the conviction of the petitioner. so far as consequential relief is concerned, the tribunal ..... would be legally entitled to pension with effect from 2nd august, 1995. we accordingly direct as follows:(i) the direction made by the armed forces tribunal in the order dated 18th february, 2013 to the effect that the petitioner would be entitled to pension only with wp(c) no. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... dated 5th february, 2010, this writ petition was transferred to the armed forces tribunal for adjudication in view of the armed forces tribunal act, 2007. however, for the reason that the matter related to postings and transfer which was beyond the jurisdiction of the tribunal, the tribunal passed an order on 15th april, 2010 that it had no ..... that if the university authorities acquiesced in the infirmities which the admission form contained and allowed the candidate to appear in the examination, then by force of the university statute, the university had no power to withdraw the candidature of the candidate. applying this principle, it is urged that the ..... application will be withheld by any intermediate authority and volunteers found suitable for attachment in all respects shall be made available by the directorates of arms and services concerned.(c) judge advocate general's departmental examination.-- (i) judge advocate general's departmental examination will be held twice a year .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... the service in the year 1980 and that he had filed the original application only in the year 2011 after the lapse of almost 30 years. the tribunal referred to section 22 of the armed forces tribunal act, 2001 stipulating the period of limitation and held that the inordinate delay in the present matter could not be condoned, thereby dismissing the petitioners application by order ..... dated 13th october, 2011..11. it is against the said order of the tribunal that the petitioner has filed the above mentioned writ before this court. the petitioner has .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... of lt.general on the basis of the revised quantified policy dated january 04, 2011 the petitioners filed application(s) under section 14 of the armed forces tribunal act, 2007 before the armed forces tribunal, principal bench, new delhi.18. in the application(s) filed, it was contended by the petitioners that the:- action of the special ..... would also result in unnecessary litigation and disquiet in the environment which would be detrimental to the discipline of the armed forces.21. vide two separate judgment(s) dated april 23, 2012, the tribunal had negatived the challenge laid by the petitioners to the proceedings of the special selection board held on january 07, ..... it was opined that the cancellation of proceedings of said board would be an unprecedented stand which would be extremely detrimental to the discipline of the armed forces and credibility of the senior officers of the army.35. thereafter on february 24, 2011 the defence minister approved the promotion of the officers recommended .....
Tag this Judgment!