Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: army act 1950 section 116 summary court martial Page 21 of about 10,253 results (0.245 seconds)

Lt Col R.K Rudra Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

..... animals for issue as troops rations, caused 13 dead animals to be buried with intention of screening the said meat contractor from legal punishment. third charge army act section 69 (against accused no.1 only) an omission prejudicial to good ordler and military discipline in that he, at alwar, on 08 apr 94, while commanding 469 ..... condition for the supply of meat dressed, in consequence of which no animals were branded and segregated 12 hours before the slaughter timings. eighth charge army act section 63 (against accused no.1 only) an omission prejudicial to good order and military discipline in that he, at alwar, while commanding 469 company ..... finally resulted in six charges being framed against the appellant as under: first charge army act section 52(f) read with section 34 of the indian penal code (against all the accused persons) such an offence as is mentioned in clause (f) of section 52 of the army act with intent to defraud in that they together, at alwar, on 23 apr 94 .....

Poongol Vs. Union of India Represented by Chief of the Army Staff and ...

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai

..... was published by unit for desertion with effect from 12th march 1987 and fsa documents were forwarded to signal records. the individual was dismissed from army service under army act section 30(3) by comdt hq istc after completion of three years from desertion and the same has been published by signals records vide part ii order ..... report from the police as to the effect that the individual who was missing could not be apprehended by them, the order of dismissal was passed under army act section 23 on 19.05.1990. it is not known how the competent authorities have come to the conclusion that the individual m.raman could not be apprehended ..... police to apprehend the individual without further delay. the individual neither rejoined voluntarily in the unit nor apprehended by civil police. accordingly, under the provisions of army act section 106, a court of inquiry was conducted after completion of 30 days by the unit which declared the individual as deserter. part ii order to this effect .....

Shaik Karimulla (Ex-service – No. 2582718-h) Versus the Secretary ...

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai

..... either pension or gratuity. the petitioner was sentenced to be dismissed from service by summary court martial on 26th december 1991 for committing an offence under section 39(b) of army act without sufficient cause overstaying leave granted to him. the petitioner is not entitled for the relief asked for in the petition. for over-staying of ..... leave for two days ie., on 16 and 17 october 1984, the petitioner was tried under section 39(a) of the army act and awarded punishment of 28 days of imprisonment in military custody. for absenting himself without leave from 9th august 1990 to 11th october 1990 (64 days ..... of 26 days rigorous imprisonment in military custody and 14 days pay fine under section 39(a) of army act. lastly for over-staying of leave from 8th october 1991 to 10th december 1991 (64 days), the petitioner was tried under section 39(b) of army act and awarded punishment of dismissal from service by summary court martial with effect .....

Nripen Sarma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Guwahati

..... opinion, the petitioner was intimated by his commanding officer that he would be tried by the summary court martial (scm) for the offence committed under army act, 1950 (section 46a). copies of the summary of evidence and additional summary of evidence along with the charge sheet were also enclosed. the charge sheet reads as ..... basis the petitioner was awarded with the aforesaid penalties.7. being aggrieved by the order of penalty, the petitioner made an application under section 164 of the army act, 1950 to the general officer, commanding-in-chief specifically taking the ground that scm was convened irregularly and he was forced to plead guilty with ..... the petitioner being aggrieved by the order of conviction, sentence and dismissal from service made an application under section 164 of the army act, 1950 dealing with the grounds for interference with the same. however, the army authority simply rejected the same on grounds that the points raised by the petitioner lacked merit as the crime .....

HusaIn Baksh Vs. Mr. Briggen Shaw (W.J.)

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1933All597

..... 1881, 44 and 45 victoria, ch. 58. the question which calls for an answer therefore is whether a soldier to whom the army act applies is protected so far as the attachment of his pay and allowances is concerned. section 136, army act, as it originally stood provided that:the pay of an officer or soldier in his majesty's regular forces shall be paid ..... any relevancy in the present case. the judgment-debtor does not claim to be a person subject to the provisions of the indian army act, 8 of 1911. persons who are so subject are described in section 2 of that act and in view of what the judgment-debtor subsequently noted on the back of a notice issued by this court, we do not ..... be rs. 300 a month. we may note in this connection that clause (j) of the proviso to section 60(1), civil p.c., which refers to act 8 of 1911 (army act), does not apply to the judgment-debtor, who. claims to be subject to the army act.11. our view is supported by lt. e.g.a. prins v. murray and co. ltd. air .....

Ex. Havildar Gh. Mohd. Dar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : 1983CriLJ1899

..... 197a. the petitioner was guilty of a civil offence and could have been tried by a g. c. m. under section 69 of the army act, to which sub-section (3) of section 13 of the official secrets act had no application. he was given full opportunity to engage and consult a counsel of his choice during the trial. two ..... determination is : can rule 62 be said to be a procedural provision established by law? the answer in my opinion must be in the affirmative. section 191 of the army act gives powers to the central government to make rules, among others, for the purpose of prescribing procedure to be followed in trials by courts martial and ..... 1950, soon after the constitution had come into force. rules under this act have been framed not by the parliament, but by the central government and are, therefore, clearly a piece of* subordinate legislation. their lordships in prithipal singh's case (supra) had refused to go into the question as to whether or not the mandate of section 193 of the army act .....

Ex. Sigmn Surendra Bahadur Singh Vs. the Chief of the Army Staff and O ...

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

..... and imposing sentences of rigorous imprisonment for nine months and dismissal from service was sought to be called in question by way of statutory complaint under section 164(2) of the army act,1950.highlighting the fact that, the complaint, submitted on 03.02.2008,had remained undecided even after expiry of the period of one month, as prescribed ..... on 21.03.2007,he was tried and convicted on his plea of guilty by a scm in respect of the following charges:- first charge (offence under section 36(d) of the army act,1950) leaving his post without orders from his superior - in that he, at dehradun, between 0400 hrs and 0600 hrs on 17 dec 2006, when on ..... her hand and catching her by trousers (salwar) intending thereby to outrage her modesty. third charge(offence under section 69 of the army act,1950) committing a civil offence, that is to say, wrongful confinement of a person, contrary to section 342 of the indian penal code in that he, at dehradun, on 17 dec 2006, wrongfully confined sh laxman .....

Ex-swr Girdhari Lal Yadav Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

..... the 2 armd bde combined offrs mess guard, quitted the said guard without leave. 3. aggrieved by the said order of punishment, the petitioner had filed an appeal under section 164 of the army act and vide order dated 27.04.1993 the same was rejected. the petitioner, thereafter, had filed a writ petition bearing w.p.(c) no.4446/1996 which was ..... 2 armd bde combined offrs mess guard, broke into the house of ic-16786f maj pjs sandhu of the same regt in the search of plunder. charge under section 36(d) of the army act without orders from his superior officer leaves his guard in that he, at c/o 56 apo on night 26/27 july 83 between 2220 hrs and 0030 ..... period of four months in civil custody and was ordered to be dismissed from service. the charges which were framed against the petitioner are as under: charge under section 36(b) of the army act breaking into a house in search of plunder in that he, at c/o 56 apo on night 26 july 83 between 2220 h and 2230 h, while .....

Heo Rulho Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Guwahati

..... june 1996, while on active service, by intentionally causing the death of miss. rukhieznuo, daygther of heu rulho, a civilian, committed murder. third charge deserting the service army act section 38(1) in that he, at field on 29 june 1996, while on active service, absented himself from the unit, until apprehended by the search party of the ..... unit from nearby jungle on 02 july 1996. fourth charge committing a civil offence, that is to say army act attempt to murder, contrary to section section 69 307 of the indian penal code in that he, at field on 29 june 1996, fired three shot from his 7.62 mm self ..... equipment reparier name ram rattan, 5th battalion the jammu and kashmir rifles, is charged with :- first charge committing a civil offence, that is to say, army act contrary to section 302 of the indian section 69 penal code in that he, at field on 29 june 1996, while on active service, by intentionally causing the death of mr. het bahadur, .....

Cpl. Gokul Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1983CriLJ1223

..... the argument relating.to the vires of. section 124 of the act. section 125 of the army act (no xlvi of 1950 is in pari materia with section 124 of the act. a contention was raked in ram sarup v. union of lndia : 1965crilj236 that section 125 of the army act is discriminatory and contravene- the provisions 'of ..... article 14 of the constitution. their lordships of 'the supreme court considered section 549 cr. p.c. (old) which is now equivalent to section ..... laid down in the aforesaid two supreme court cases considering the provisions of the army act equally apply to section 124 of the act. for. as stated above, section 125 of the army act is identical with section 124 of the act. 8. their lordships of the supreme court in prithi pal singh's case .....