Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: army act 1950 section 116 summary court martial Page 10 of about 10,253 results (0.174 seconds)

U.O.i. and ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh Khanna and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2001SC3327; [2001(91)FLR240]; JT2001(7)SC50; 2001LabIC2898; 2001(5)SCALE418; (2001)7SCC113; 2001(3)SCT1145(SC)

..... come up in appeal by special leave. we have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. the position of law insofar as the interpretation of section 122 of the army act, 1950 is concerned stands resolved and settled by a three-judge bench decision of this court in union of india and ors. v. harjeet singh sandhu : [2001 ..... the high court even if the delay was attributable to the interim orders of the high court that did not make any difference to the applicability of section 122 of the army act.7. the appellants filed letters patent appeal. by an interim order dated 3.3.1994 the division bench gave liberty to the appellants to proceed ..... of brigadier along with the consequential benefits attaching with such promotion. the court martial proceedings were directed to be quashed as being barred by time under section 122 of the army act overruling the plea of the appellants that the delay in court martial proceedings was attributable to the interim orders passed by the high court. in the .....

Harcharan Singh Premi Vs. the Officer Commanding Army, Military Hospit ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1970Mad176

..... the president on 18-2-1967 and was a temporary commissioned officer, the army act, 1950, is applicable to the persons mentioned in section 2 of the act. section 2(1)(a) states that officers, junior commissioned officers and warrant officers of the regular army are persons subject to the act. an 'officer' is defined under section 3(xviii) as meaning 'a person commissioned, gazetted or in pay as ..... on 27-2-1967. the termination of the commission is stated to be under paragraph 12 of the army instructions 231. the petitioner filed a review petition to the director general, armed forces medical service on 7-3-1967 under section 27 of the army act, 1950, and as the petitioner did not receive any immediate redress on his application for review, he submitted a .....

R. Viswan and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1983SC658; 1983(2)Crimes392(SC); (1983)IILLJ157SC; 1983(1)SCALE497; (1983)3SCC401; [1983]3SCR60

..... be fortiori be valid. now sro 329 is issued by the central government under sub-sections (1) and (4) of section 4 of the army act 1950 which provide inter alia as under:section 4(1) the central government ..... of section 21, sub-section (4) of section 102 and section 191 of the army act 1950 made applicable to the members of, gref, sro 330 applying certain provisions of the army rules, 1954 to the members of gref in exercise of the powers conferred under section 21, sub-section (4) of section 102 and section 191 of the army act 1950 would ..... restricted the fundamental rights of the members of gref. the respondents submitted that in the circumstances the petitioners were rightly charged under section 63 of the army act 1950 and their convictions by the court-martial and subsequent dismissals were valid. the respondents thus sought to sustain the validity of the action .....

Hav. Ved Prakash Sangwan Vs. Union of India

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2000VAD(Delhi)749

..... for three months. however, all the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.' 2. dismissal from service sanctioned in accordance with army rule 17 of army rules 1954 read with army act section 20(3) of army act, 1950 by commander 170 infantry brigade.' 3. there was an appeal to the high court challenging the judgment of the trial court, ..... ved prakash sangwan of 13 raj rif is dismissed from the service by the orders of the commander 170 infantry brigade, c/o, 56 apo under army act section 20(3) of army act, 1950. his dismissal takes effect from 16th july, 1991. cause of dismissal: dismissed from service having been convicted by court of addl. sessions judge bhiwani ..... brigade passed the following order of dismissal on the 30th of july, 1991:- cause of dismissal and item of table in rule 17 of army rules 1954 read with army act section 20(3) of army act, 1950. 1. 'dismissed from service w.e.f. 16 july, 1991 being convicted by hon'ble court of addl sessions judge, bhiwani( .....

R.K. Gogna Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2001(60)DRJ505

..... .1997. it was also stated in the counter affidavit that as against the aforesaid order passed by the chief of army staff an alternative remedy by way of filing statutory complaint is provided for under section 17 of the army act, 1950. 5. the court considered the averments made in the writ petition as also in the counter affidavit. in support ..... (d&v; dtd.) for consideration to award of censure by the coas, so as to avoid resorting to the extreme step of action under the provisions of army act section 19 read with army rule 14.' 12. the petitioner was tried by general court martial on 8 charges. the general court martial found the petitioner not guilty in all the eight ..... even otherwise and also because the said punishment was awarded beyond three years period from the date of occurrence thus it is hit by the provisions of section 122 of the army act which provides for period of limitation for taking such action. it was also submitted that the aforesaid order of censure is bad in law and is .....

Gurnam Singh Ic - 28082 K Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2008(104)DRJ505

..... now and, thereforee, the decision of gcm on this aspect was not correct and was a fatal impropriety per se in view of rule 62 of the army rules and section 139 of the army act. he also placed reliance upon the judgment of this court in lt. col. r.s. bhagat v. union of india : air1982delhi191 .18. we ..... aforesaid, the general court martial found the petitioner guilty of both the charges and cashiered him from service. the petitioner filed post-confirmation appeal under section 164(2) of the army act. during the pendency of the said statutory petition, the petitioner received show-cause notice dated 17/21.10.1988 asking him as to why his pension ..... punishment is that not only the petitioner lost his job, it deprived him of his pensionary benefits as well. the petitioner preferred a statutory petition under section 164 of the army act. the competent authority in the ministry of defence, govt. of india, though maintained the guilt and conviction of the petitioner and thus rejected the statutory .....

Brig. R.P. Singh Vsm Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 114(2004)DLT792; 2004(77)DRJ480

..... or to lay down any condition or restriction or reservation on the power of such confirming authority otherwise than by virtue of issuance of a warrant under section 154 of the army act, 1950.21. there is no dispute that respondent no.4 was functioning as goc, 11 corps. since the sentence awarded to the petitioner in the instant ..... entitled k.k. taneja v. union of india & anr. however, we find that in this case, no warrant authorising an officer in terms of sections 154 and 166 of the army act, 1950 was produced before the court. as such, the ratio of this judgment would have no application to the instant case.32. the questions raised by the ..... same have not attained the force of law. according to the respondents, no regulations have been framed under the provisions of the army act, 1950 till date as envisaged under section 192, 193 and 193a of the act. the defense service regulations are not statutory in nature and it is so indicated in the preface thereto. thereforee, such regulations, .....

C. Ramanujan Vs. State of Mysore

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1962Kant196; AIR1962Mys196

..... court, it would be no longer be possible for the military authorities to ask for an order for delivery of the offender under section 549 of the code of criminal procedure. section 125 of the army act which confers which tribunal the offender shall be tried, does not provide for the delivery of the offender to the military authorities. the ..... delivery to them.(6) the clear effect of the three statutory provisions to which i have referred, viz., section 125 of the army act, section 549 of the code of criminal procedure and rule 3 of the rules framed under section 549, is that if a person commits an offence for which he could be tried under the code of ..... .(10) this argument rests entirely upon the expression 'shall be instituted' occurring in s. 125 of the army act. i do not consider this argument to be substantial.(11) it is no doubt true that section 125 of the army act, says that it is for the military authorities to decide whether the proceedings shall be instituted before a criminal .....

Mulkh Raj Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : 1983CriLJ1794

..... forces. as held by their lordships in ram sarup v. union of india : 1965crilj236 taking away this right is not restricted, to section 21 of the army act, but every provision in the army act which abridges or abrogates any fundamental right of the members of the arnied forces, is covered by article 33 of the constitution, which can ..... simultaneously taken cognizance of the offence to give rise to any conflict of jurisdiction between it and a court martial. respondent no. 4 having plenary powers under section 125 of the army act to have the petitioner tried by a g. c. m. and the criminal court and court martial (adjustment of jurisdiction) rules, 1952 not being ..... under which exemption to supply the aforesaid material was claimed by the central government is violative of articles 21 and 22 of the constitution, even section 164(2) of the army act, which does not envisage a right of personal hearing or hearing through a counsel in a convict is ultra vires the constitution and opposed to the .....

Sep Ashok Kumar Vs. Chief of the Army Staff and Others

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

..... by cdr meerut sub area (annx p-3). we notice from the show cause notice that on 16 dec 1992 the applicant was charged under army act section 48 (2) intoxication and army act section 40 (c) using insubordinate language to a superior officer. there are two punishments recorded that it is 7 days ri in military custody and ..... same. all the punishments awarded by col e t mathew were as follows : (a) 22 dec 1992 - army act section 48 - intoxication and insubordinate language. (b) 17 nov 1993 army act section 63 - unauthorised possession of govt property. (c) 19 nov 1993 army act section 41 (2) - disobeying lawful command of superior officer. 17. the applicant was serving with vsd which, although ..... entries as under:-ser no.date of offencetype of offencepunishment awarded(a)25 dec 91aa sec 48 intoxication1. deprived of acting rank of naik2. pay fine of 14 days(b)16 dec 9(i) aa sec 48 (2) intoxication(ii) aa sec 40 (c) using insubordinate language to his superior officer7 days ri in military custody. .....