Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: army act 1950 section 116 summary court martial Page 2 of about 10,253 results (0.196 seconds)

Manjit Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

..... regiment.4. the charges for which the petitioner was tried at the summary court martial were two in numbers. the first was for the offence under section 36(d) of the army act, 1950 i.e. without orders from the superior officer leaving his guard. it was alleged that while on duty the petitioner left the quarter guard between 04 ..... 05:45 hours on january 04, 2000 without permission from his superior officer. the second charge was of having committed an offence under section 49(b) of the army act 1950 on the allegation that the act of being away from the duty place facilitated a prisoner yadhwinder singh to escape from the custody.5. we need not note the evidence ..... not arise. hence, the second charge was not even maintainable.9. the truncated argument is based on a convoluted logic. section 49(b) of the army act 1950 makes it an offence where a person subject to the act commits the offence of wilfully or without reasonable excuse allowing any person to escape who is committed to his charge or .....

Ex. Ln Vishav Priya Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 147(2008)DLT202

..... in which an scm can be convened rather than a general courts martial (gcm) or district courts martial (dcm) or summary general courts martial (sgcm) as envisaged in section 108 of the army act, 1950 (army act for short).2. in cwp 2511/1992 the petitioner, ex. l nk vishav priya singh, has alleged that he had made complaint against the co, 19th batallion mahar regiment ..... the judge advocate....24. per contra respondent 1 in his affidavit has submitted that the notes under the sections and rules as are found under various provisions of law compiled by the army authorities in the manual of military law do not form part of the army act, 1950 and army rules, 1954. the rules of 1954 are stated to have been borrowed from the indian .....

Union of India and ors. Vs. Dinesh Prasad.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... ), he absented himself from unit unauthorisedly while in active service. on 03.08.2001, col. a.s. sehrawat, commandant, under his signature served a charge sheet under section 39(a) of the army act, 1950 (for short, 'army act') on the respondent for the absence without leave for 808 days. the commandant constituted summary court- martial to try the respondent for the above charge. the respondent ..... .r.o. 318 dated 6th december, 1962 (as amended by s.r.o. no. 325 dated 31st august, 1977). - in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the army act, 1950 and in supersession of the notification of the government of india in the late affair department no. 93-x dated 25th june 1942, as subsequently amended, the central .....

Gulab Chandra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Guwahati

..... before the summary court martial proceedings.14. indisputably, the petitioner has been tried for committing civil offence under section 69 of the army act, 1950 for abetment under section 109 ipc read with section 20(b) of the ndps act, 1983. the offence against the petitioner is abetment of his colleague in procuring and transporting 30 kgs of ganja ..... .01, followed by a supplementary petition dated 27.7.01 before the deputy inspector general hq, nagaland range (south), assam rifles, kohima under section 164 of the army act, 1950 against the impugned summary court martial proceedings dated 3.8.1999. in those two petitions, the petitioner made no allegation, not even a whisper ..... of punishment. the said writ petition was disposed of on 12.3.01 allowing him to file a petition before a competent authority under section 164 of the army act, 1950 and directing the competent authority to dispose of the petition within 2 months from the date of receipt of the said petition from the petitioner .....

Ex. Gunner (Operator) T. Suresh, Vs. the Chief of Army Staff New Delhi ...

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai

..... 16.00 hrs and punishment of dismissal from service was inflicted against the applicant. he would further submit that the statutory petition filed by the applicant under section 164(2) of army act, 1950 was not considered within the time limit. therefore he had to file a writ petition in w.p.no. 6199 of 2008 for a direction to dispose ..... , 1954 and therefore the verdict of summary court martial is bad in the eye of law. the said violation would attract the provisions of section 164 (2) of army act, 1950 read with para 365(g) of the defence service regulations 1987. the court of inquiry was recorded by captain arun kar who was misused later as ..... both sides, it has become necessary for us to peruse the various punishments awardable by court martial given under section 71 of the army act, 1950. in the said enlistment of punishment there is no mention to discharge as one of the punishment. section 71(e) would show the dismissal from service as one of the punishments. no doubt, discharge from .....

Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... on the part of the spouse of the victim. 6 on the question of law, it was urged that having due regard to the provisions of section 120 of the army act 1950 and the decision of this court in ex havildar ratan singh vs union of india & ors3 and in union of india and others vs vishav priya singh4 ..... on which the submissions of the appellant would be worthy of acceptance. 9 section 120 of the army act, 1950 provides as follows: 120. powers of summary courts- martial. (1) subject to the provisions of sub- section (2), a summary court- martial may try any offence punishable under this act. (2) when there is no grave reason for immediate action and ..... ex-havildar ratan singh (supra). subsequently in vishav priya singh (supra), a three judge bench of this court, while interpreting section 120, has observed thus: 19. section 116 of the act empowers the co of any corps, department and detachment of the regular army to hold an scm and specifically states that he alone shall constitute the court. sub .....

Ramrao S/O Punjaji Rakha Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2005(2)MhLj1022

..... punished as afore-stated. the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that summary court martial was conducted in respect of the offence under section 39 of the army act, 1950 and punishments of rigorous imprisonment in civil prison and dismissal from service have been awarded. learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that summary ..... rigorous imprisonment for one month in civil prison and to be dismissed from service, for an offence of absenteeism under section 39 of the army act, 1950 and as a deserter under section 106 of the said act.3. the factual matrix in this matter is as under :--the petitioner was employed as a driver with the respondent ..... punishment is permissible, and therefore, the order of dismissal is justified. in reply to this argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under section 73 of the army act, the word 'court martial' is used and there is no wording as 'summary court martial' in the said provision, and therefore, the summary .....

Sepoy Brij Lal Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

..... was on account of his voluntarily causing injury to himself with intent to render himself unfit for service and, therefore, he committed an offence under section 46 (c) of the army act, 1950. a charge sheet was issued in this regard on 1 st october, 2002. summary of evidence was undertaken sometime in september, 2002. five prosecution ..... march, 2002. it was alleged that on 21st march, 2002, approximately at 1130 hours he returned back and subsequently he was supposed to clean the bunker, section wise and carry out improvement of camouflage. he was later deployed along with three others for an ambush under the command of lance naik chander shekhar pal. ..... 17th march, 2003, passed by the general officer, commandingin-chief, northern command, rejecting his statutory representation.2. briefly the facts are that the petitioner joined the indian army in august 1999. apparently, he had taken 30 days annual leave in february, 2002; he rejoined duty, according to the schedule, on 20 th march, 2002. .....

Union of India and ors. Vs. Subedar Ram Narain

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1998SC3225; JT1998(6)SC383; 1998LabIC3530; (1999)ILLJ77SC; 1998(5)SCALE278; (1998)8SCC52; [1998]Supp1SCR616

..... 10. the terms of regulation 16(a) are clearly different from regulation 113(a). according to regulation 16(a) when an officer, as defined in section 3(xviii) of the army act, 1950, is cashiered or dismissed or removed from service then the president has the discretion of either forfeiting his pension or ordering that he be granted pension ..... in close arrest with effect from 17.11.1988 and was then court-martialed under the provisions of the army act. he was charged under section 40(a), using criminal force to his superior officer, and section 48 of the army act, 1950 for being in a state of intoxication while on duty.3. the general court martial found the respondent guilty ..... and thereupon he was dismissed from service on 01.08.1989. he filed an appeal to the chief of the army staff against the decision of the general .....

Amarendra Nath Das and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : 1977CriLJ493

..... preferring an appeal. the copies were supplied on 4th of february, 1975. on 24th march, 1975, the petitioners preferred appeals to the respondent no. 2 under section 164(2) of the army act, 1950. on 5th of aug., 1975, the petitioners were informed of the result of the appeal by the respondent no. 6 and thereafter, the petitioners obtained the ..... the warrant reads as follows:to the officer, not being under the rank of a field officer commanding the bengal area.in pursuance of the provisions of the army act, 1950 (xlvi of 1950), i do hereby empower you, or the officer on whom your command may devolve during your absence not under the rank of field officer, from time to ..... officer not being under the rank of a field officer commanding the bengal area. this warrant was issued in pursuance of the provisions of the army act, 1950 and the chief of the army staff empowered the officer not being under the rank of the field officer commanding the bengal area or the officer on whom such officer's command .....