Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: army act 1950 section 116 summary court martial Page 30 of about 10,253 results (1.742 seconds)

Smt. Harnandi Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2001IVAD(Delhi)420; 91(2001)DLT54; 1999(59)DRJ561

..... as under:-'123.(a) a person who has been guilty of any of the following offences:--(i) desertion, vide section 38 of the army act,(ii) fraudulent enrolment, vide section 43(a) of the army act, shall forfeit the whole of his prior service towards pension or gratuity upon being convicted by court martial of the ..... regulation, on a plain reading, provides for forfeiture of whole prior service amongst others of deserter convicted by court-martial of the offence under section 38 of the army act. it also envisages reckoning of such forfeiture service towards pension and gratuity in certain circumstances. in any case, it does not provide for irrevocable ..... shirk important service or enlists or accepts an appointment elsewhere without regular separation from the army.7. section 38 of the army act makes desertion an offence and provides for its punishment. section 105 provides for the capture of deserter and section 106 prescribes the procedure to be followed when a person absent without leave is .....

S. Nagendran Vs. Government of India, Ministry of Defence and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : (1992)IILLJ559AP

..... grounds. any action terminating the services of the employee is subject to the provisions of the army act, 1950 and the rules and regulations made thereunder. rule 14 of the army rules, 1954 contemplates that before proposing to terminate the services of an officer under section 19 of the army act, he should be given an opportunity to show-cause in the manner specified in sub-rule ..... court in the said o.p. 7. to appreciate the first contention, it is necessary to extract the relevant provisions. section 19 of the army act, 1950 only says that the termination of services of any employee is subject to the provisions of the act and the rule (2) of rule 14 on which reliance is placed is as follows : '14. termination of service by .....

Ram Kumar Vs. the Chief of the Army Staff

Court : Delhi

Reported in : AIR1985Delhi374

..... accused is given the right to object 'to being tried by an officer sitting on the court'. it is called a 'challenge'. the procedure is set out in section 130 of the army act 1950. which reads as follows challenges. (1)at all trials by general, district or summary general court-martial, as soon as the court is assembled, the names of ..... leave of absence from 25 apr 76 to 4 may 76. failed without sufficient cause to rejoin at field on the expiry of the said leave. (c)third charge army act section 39 (a). absenting himself without leave in that he, at field on 24 june 76, absented himself without leave from 0600 hrs to 1330 hrs.absenting himself without ..... infantry division, convened a general court martial to try capt. rain kumar on four charges. the charges on which he was arraigned were as follows : (a)first charge army act section 45 behaving in a manner unbecoming the position and the character expected of him in that he. at field, on or about 31 mar 76, submitted his annual confidential .....

Balwant Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : 1992CriLJ1712

..... , the error stands rectified. therefore, this issue is no more res integra.9. regarding challenge to the constitution of the summary court martial in terms of section 116 of the army act, the record does not bear out the submission. as held in : [1988]2scr953 commanding officer (respondent no. 2) was surely competent to convene and constitute ..... repel the contentions raised and pointed out that judgment reported in : 1988crilj158 stood reviewed by the hon'ble supreme court, holding that the provisions of the section 130 of the army act were not applicable to the summary court martial. he also relied upon the judgment of the hon'ble supreme court reported in : [1988]2scr953 to ..... on december 7, 1990 when the learned counsel for the petitioner came up with some new legal pleas alleging infraction of the provisions of sections 130 and 116 of the army act by the respondents. the contention in this regard was buttressed by the assertion that the petitioner had not been asked as to whether he .....

Captian Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Jandk;

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

..... that the entire trial be abandoned and stopped.18. mr. slathia in his wisdom has made an attempt to give this case a different complexion in terms of section 122 of the army act, 1950 wherein the maximum period prescribed in giving the consent by the authority is three years stating that in the present case, after the earlier consent held to be bad ..... that the trial needs to be stopped and abandoned.27. we have also examined the present case in terms of section 122 of the army act, 1950, which deals with period of limitation for trial by court-martial of any person subject to the army act in which the maximum period is prescribed as three years, as mr. slathia has made an attempt to take advantage .....

S.K. Singh Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Chandigarh Bench Chandimandir

..... to ranks without caring for the statutory provisions and beyond his jurisdiction. respondent no 2 , 3 and 5 were under statutory obligation as encompassed in section 126 of the army act, 1950 before instituting the summary court martial proceedings to obtain permission from the criminal court. challan and list of witnesses had been duly filed before the criminal ..... the trial of the petitioner is without jurisdiction and nullity in the eyes of law. 14. the petitioner had forwarded a post confirmation petitioner under section 164(2) of the army act, 1950, vide letter no 27309/gsg/legal notice no 1/2003 dated 24.5.2003. the respondent no 1,2,4 and 5 have taken ..... whether respondent no. 5 was under statutory application to hold a joint trial as enunciated in rule 35 of the army rule. (c) whether respondents no. 5 was under statutory obligation to comply with section 127 of the army act 1950. (d) whether respondent no. 5 could hold the trial by way of summary court martial without first obtaining .....

Jc-116244 Ex-subedar Joginder Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : [2003(96)FLR376]; JT2001(9)SC23; 2001LabIC4012; 2001(7)SCALE263; (2001)9SCC602; 2001(4)SCT1012(SC); (2002)1UPLBEC150

..... the writ petition in limine on 8.9.1998. hence this appeal.2. we notice the relevant provisions of the army act and regulations:-the army act, 1950 'section 52. offences in respect of property. - any person subject to this act who commits any of the following offences, that is to say, - (a) commits theft of any property belonging ..... .'4. under regulation 113(a) he was ineligible for pension or gratuity in respect of previous service as he was dismissed from service under section 52(a) of the army act. unlike regulation 16(a) passing of an order by the president for forfeiting the pensionary benefits is not required under this regulation governing the respondent ..... fact that subedar joginder singh was dismissed from service on 13.7.1985 as a sequel to general court martial for an offence under section 52(a) of the army act for committing theft of property belonging to the government and that his representation under regulation 113(a) pleading exceptional circumstances for grant of pension .....

Shri Ravinder Singh Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2002VAD(Delhi)148; 97(2002)DLT756; 2003(1)SLJ111b(Delhi)

..... the petitioner was dismissed from service in view of the enquiry report of the same date. but later, on a post-confirmation petition made in terms of section 106 of the army act, the sentence of dismissal was modified to that of discharge on humanitarian grounds by order 29th april 1993.4. the writ petition has been filed questioning the ..... which begins from rule 106.27. it further appears that it had been recorded therein that he had also earlier been convicted once for an offence under section 39(b) of the army act for a similar offence.28. it cannot be, in the absence of any authentic material, said that the petitioner was forced to give a certificate on ..... he never raised a question that he was injured. such a contention had been raised for the first time in the writ petition. in his post-confirmation petition under section 164 of the army act, he stated thus:' however, while i was on leave at my home-town, moondhi, district kangra, himachal pradesh i fell ill on february 26, 1992 and .....

Harjeet Singh Sandhu Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : (1997)3UPLBEC2015

..... by court martial had become barred by limitation. in paragraph 31 of the counter affidavit it is clearly admitted that a re-trial under the army act was barred by section 122 of the army act and it was inexpedient to hold such a trial. therefore there is no dispute about the fact that the court martial was found to inexpedient ..... purpose of pension. the order of enhanced punishment is annexure-viii.3. on 24th september. 1979 chief of the army staff passed an order annexure-iv annuling the g. c. m. proceedings under section 165 of the army act (hereinafter called the act) on the ground that the proceedings were 'unjust'. on 20th december, 1979 the petitioner received a show cause ..... notice under section 19 of the act read with rule 14 of the rules framed under the army act, calling upon him to show cause as to why his services be not terminated. the notice is annexure-v and was replied by .....

Ic 56663x Col Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. Union Of India Ministry Of Defence

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... 19.11.2018 containing three charges pertaining to the appellant having behaved in a manner unbecoming his position and the character expected of him, under section 45 of the army act, 1950, and challenging the order dated 22.11.2018 passed by convening authority directing the trial of the appellant by way of general court martial (gcm ..... respondents, had stayed the disciplinary proceedings as well as the general court martial proceedings.5. the learned counsel appearing for the appellant relying upon section 122 of the army act submitted that the trial by court martial was vitiated being barred by the period of limitation prescribed under the said provision. according to him the ..... authority and consequently the trial proceedings. he also submitted that the charge-sheet dated 19.11.2018 4 framing three charges against the appellant under section 45 of the army act, based on the said allegations was also required to be quashed and set aside.6. per contra, the learned senior advocate mr. r. .....