Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: army act 1950 section 116 summary court martial Sorted by: recent Page 1 of about 10,806 results (0.270 seconds)

Ex Lance Naik Krishan Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Secretary ...

Court : Uttaranchal

..... action of the commanding officer, 10 engineer regiment, in initiating the holding of a summary court- martial against the appellant. in this behalf our pointed attention was drawn to section 130 of the army act, 1950. section 130 of the aforesaid is being extracted hereunder:130. challenges.- (1) at al trials by general, district or summary general court-martial, as soon as the court is ..... can only be held by a commanding officer to whose corps /department/detachment the concerned accused belongs. it is submitted that the term 'commanding officer' has been defined in section 3 (v) of the army act, 1950. section 3 (v) of the army act, 1950 is being reproduced hereunder:3. definitions.- in this act, unless the context otherwise requires,- ....(v)'commanding officer', when used in any provision of this .....

Havaldar Tejbali Singh Vs. Major Nachhattar Singh and anr.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : (1998)ILLJ82MP

..... brigade, who was served with a charge sheet on march 9, 1989. in summary court martial held under section 116 of the army act, 1950 the petitioner was found guilty and was dismissed from service. however, the brigade commander of the unit under section 162 of the army act converted the sentence of dismissal into one of discharge. the petitioner challenged the order by a petition- m ..... the petitioner are of no help to the petitioner.8. in case of lt. colonel k.d. gupta (supra), the supreme court in civil appeal directed the authorities of indian army to reconsider case of the employee for promotion on the basis of his medical categorisation continuing as s.i. the authorities denied promotion as lower medical catergorisation was not connected ..... s.k. dubey, j.1. in this petition under section 12 of the contempt of courts act, 1971 read with article 215 of the constitution the petitioner makes a prayer to punish the non-petitioners for not complying the order of this court dated july 23, 1996 .....

Vidya Parkash Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1988SC705; JT1988(1)SC284; 1989LabIC1205; 1988(1)SCALE313; (1988)2SCC459; [1988]2SCR953; 1988(1)LC588(SC)

..... that the appellant was tried by a summary court martial and not by a general or district court martial and army rule 39(2) does not apply to summary court martial constituted under section 116 of the army act, 1950. it has been further stated that a summary court martial may be held by a commanding officer of any ..... corps, department or detachment of the regular army, as stipulated by section 116(c) of the army act. it has been submitted that the appellant has been ..... been convened by the commanding officer of the corps according to the provisions of the army act, 1950, the first submission made on behalf of the appellant fails.14. chapter 6 of the army act specifies the offences and also the punishments for such offences. section 39(a) specifies that to be absent without leave constitutes an offence and .....

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 .....

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 .....

Ratan Kumar Dhauria Vs. L. Union of India

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Kolkata

..... imposition of sentence was communicated to the wife of the petitioner by the concerned authority. 5. petitioner preferred an appeal under section 164 of the army act 1950 and also an application under section 182 of the act before the goc-in-c, head quarter, eastern command for suspension of sentence awarded against him. as the controlling officer did ..... at the hands of such a person. the learned advocate for the respondent on the contrary argued that as per section 116 of the army act 1950 only the commanding officer is entitled to preside over such scm. section 116 runs as follows :- (1) a summary court martial may be held by the commanding officer of any corps ..... , department or detachment of the regular army, and he shall alone constitute the court. (2) the proceedings shall be attended .....

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 .....

Pradeep Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2007(2)JKJ55[SC]; JT2007(6)SC1; 2007(6)SCALE1

..... for a period of 2= months was treated as misconduct and summary court martial was convened in terms of section 116 of the army act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'). he was charged under section 39a of the act by order dated 7.8.1989 for having remained absent from duty without leave. he was tried and punished by ..... it and to follow the procedural safeguards. if one looks at the provisions of law relating to court-martial in the army act, the army rules, defence service regulations and other administrative instructions of the army, it is manifestly clear that the procedure prescribed is perhaps equally fair if not more than a criminal trial provides to the ..... officiating commanding officer was not competent to convene summary court martial was without substance in view of the definition of 'commandant officer' as given in section 3(v) of the act. so far as the denial of legal assistance is concerned, it was noted that the appellant admitted that major d.p. naikavde was named as .....

Narendra Pal Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : (2001)3UPLBEC2253

..... , j.1. the petitioner while borne in the books of 13 garhwal rifles as a rifleman holding the rank of acting lance nayak was chargesheeted vide charge-sheet dated 18.6.1993 under section 52 of the army act, 1950 for having committed theft in respect of carbine, machinegun 9 m.m. regd. no. zz-1945, the property of ..... courts martial arc of four kinds : (a) general courts martial; (b) district courts martial; (c) summary general courts martial; and (d) summary courts martial (section 108 of the army act, 1950). as visualized by section 116 of the act the summary court martial may be held by the commanding officer of any corps, department or detachment of the regular ..... a district court martial namely, central government or chief of the army staffer any officer authorised by the chief of the army staff who is competent to convene a general court martial and a district court martial, as provided by section 115 of the army act, 1950. summary court martial in the instant was not convened by an .....

Chief of the Army Staff and Others Vs. Laxman Giri, Ex Havaldar No. 92 ...

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2000(1)AWC716; [2000(85)FLR76]; (2000)1UPLBEC868

..... officer should they behave so as to present a conduct unbecoming of a gentleman, may be convicted by court martial or cashiered. this is so provided in section 45 of the army act, 1950.7. what the petitioner, laxman girt, as havaldar, did to the wife of a soldier, is worse than a conduct unbecoming of a gentleman. the ..... prison and (c) dismissal from service.2. apparently, the submissions as were made on behalf of the petitioner were that for want of procedure in conformity with section 120 of the army act, 1950, the entire proceedings were bad. at the very outset, this court places on record that the learned judge was in error in the judgment. on record ..... present case is of summary court-martial which can be held by the commanding officer of any corps, department or detachment of the regular army. section 116 of the army act. 1950. in the circumstances of the present case, trial by summary court -martia! was not out of place nor bad for lack of jurisdiction. the satisfaction whether .....