Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: army act 1950 section 16 persons to be attested Year: 2002 Page 1 of about 52 results (0.309 seconds)

Ex. Rect. Lachhman Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2003(1)SLJ237(Delhi)

..... that the petitioner never admitted his guilt nor did he plead guilty to the charge. next that though the petitioner was served with a charge sheet under section 39(a) of the army act, 1950, but was not given any opportunity to take help of a legal practitioner as the trial was of criminal nature. this lapse itself vitiates the trial. ..... act and under the command of the officer holding the court, except an officer, junior commissioned officer or warrant officer. ..... of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was not attested in the army i.e. he was not confirmed and was a recruit only and could not be subjected to summary court martial, we find no force in this as section 120(3) of the army act, 1950 provides that a summary court-martial may try any person subject to this .....

Lt. Col. V.N. Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2002(64)DRJ379

..... that in the particular circumstances of this case the respondent is not 'liable to be tried' by a court-martial.section 122(1) of the army act, 1950, provides that no trial by court-martial of any person subject to the army act for any offence shall be commenced after the expiry of the period of three years from the date of the offence. ..... detention as done by the hon'ble supreme court in bhim singh's case.(c) issue writ order or direction of appropriate nature striking down the provisions of section 153, 154 and 160 of the army act 1950.(c-1) issue writ order and direction of appropriate nature to quash the orders dated 30.10.1996, order 30.10.1996 invoking ..... offence, the trial is not vitiated. it was held:'8. the next point which was unsuccessfully urged before the high court was in the context of section 122 of the army act of 1950 which prescribes a period of limitation of three years. the high court did not accede to the submission in this behalf having regard to the law enunciated .....

Umesh Singh Alias Umesh Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar

Court : Patna

..... of 1966 and such amendment apply to west bengal also, (ii) expiry of period of three years of limitation prescribed for court-martial proceeding by section 122 of the army act, 1950 would not confer jurisdiction upon the ordinary criminal court if it did not have initial jurisdiction due to non compliance as required by the code and the rules and (iii) ..... necessary to take a look at the aforesaid provisions :--code section 475. delivery to commanding officers of persons liable to be tried by court-marital -- (1) the central government may make rules consistent with this code and army act, 1950 (46 of 1950), the navy act, 1957 (62 of 1957), and the air force act, 1950 (45 of 1950), and any other law, relating to the armed forces of .....

Jay Shiv Kushwaha Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2002(3)AWC1969; (2002)3UPLBEC2098

..... centre. hyderabad. when the petitioner re-joined on 12th november, 2001, after being absent for 53 days; 10 days rigorous imprisonment under section 39(a) of the army act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as army act) was awarded to the petitioner. the petitioner was discharged from service with effect from 22nd march, 2001 under rule 13 (3) item ..... consideration in the present writ petition : (a) whether when a person has already been punished and awarded a sentence for an act which is an offence under section 39 of the army act, on same act can he be also discharged? (b) whether the principle of double jeopardy as enshrined under article 20(2) of the ..... the counsel for the petitioner made following submissions in support of the writ petition : (i) the petitioner was awarded 10 days rigorous imprisonment under section 39(a) of army act for his offence of being absent without leave. the subsequent discharge of the petitioner on same ground is impermissible and amounts to violation of protection .....

Union of India (Uoi) Through Its Secretary, Ministry of Defense, Vs. E ...

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 101(2002)DLT267; 2003(1)SLJ171(Delhi)

..... the aforesaid decision with regard to scope of section 19 of the army act and rule 14 of the army rules, and section 45 of the army act, we may notice these provisions:section 19 of the army act, 1950:'19. termination of service by central government.- subject to the provisions of this act and the rules and regulations made there under ..... officer with or without pension or gratuity; or (b) compulsorily retire him from the service with pension and gratuity, if any, admissible to him.' section 45 of the army act, 1950: '45. unbecoming conduct- any officer, junior commissioned officer or warrant officer who behaves in a manner unbecoming his position and the character expected to ..... who behaves in a manner unbecoming his position can be removed from service under section 19 of the army act, 1950, read with rule 14 of the army rules, 1954 without being tried by a court martial under section 45 of the army act, which specifically deals with the subject of unbecoming conduct of an officer. before .....

Pradip Kumar Tomer Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Guwahati

..... this court dealt with the scope and applicability of the army act, 1950 to the assam rifles with reference to the notification no. sro 318 dated 6.12.1962 issued by the central government under section 4 of the act. the learned single judge held that the provisions of the army act are applicable to the assam rifles. i do not find ..... 'tentative charge sheet the accused no.371051w rfn/na pradeep kumar tomer of 26 assam rifles is subject to the army act under the provision of army act section 4(1) reads with src 318 of 06 december 62 and charged with:army act section 39(b)without sufficient causa overstaying leaving granted to himin that he. at field, on llth october, 1999 having ..... petitioner also failed to prove that for some valid reason he was unable to resume his duty on expiry of leave. the charge preferred under section 39(b) of the army act for overstaying the leave granted to him has not been denied and no attempt was made during the proceedings before the summary court martial to prove .....

Colonel Aniltej Singh Dhaliwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and 2 ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2002(64)DRJ854

..... passed by the gcm and (b) in the alternative to permit the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the question of sentence in exercise of the powers vested under section 163 of the army act, 1950, after modifying the court's previous order dated 10.5.1999. this application was vehemently opposed by the petitioner herein in the apex court. a perusal of the ..... fact that hon'ble supreme court had declined to direct the petitioner to present himself before the gcm without his reinstatement. the relevant provision is section 2(2) of the army act 1950 sates that every person subject to this act shall remain so subject until duly retired, discharged, released, removed, dismissed or cashiered from the service. it is certainly arguable that the respondents ought .....

Ex. L/Nk Rameshwar Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : RLW2003(1)Raj216; 2002(3)WLN653; 2002(3)WLN653

..... the person concerned an opportunity to show cause against the order of discharge.13. the next question which arises for consideration is whether compliance of section 22 of the army act, 1950 and rule 13 of the army rules, 1954 have been made in this case or not since it is a case of discharge?14. show cause notice dated 10.1.91 ..... government.' 8. a bare perusal of section 20 of the army act, 1950 and rule 17 of the army rules, 1954 would reveal that section 20 of the army act is confined in the case of dismissal or removal or reduction and rule 17 of the army rules, 1954 provides the procedure for such act and thus section 20 of the army act, 1950 and rule 17 of the rules of ..... notice failing which it would be presumed that there was nothing to say in this regard and an action would be taken in terms of section 20 of the army act, 1950 read with rule 13 of the army rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the rules of 1954). (x) though the petitioner was served with a show cause notice and 30 .....

N.K.C.D. Patel Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Defence and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2003(2)ALT199

..... either rigorous or simple for any period not exceeding fourteen years, is unconstitutional.6. finally he contends that the power exercisable by the competent authority under section 71 of the army act, 1950 is not only ultra vires, but also takes away the right guaranteed under article 21 of the constitution. he further submitted that as per paragraph no. ..... orderd.s.r. varma, j.1. this writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the provisions of section 71(a), (b) and (c) of the army act, 1950 are unconstitutional and ultra vires.2. the facts in brief are that the petitioner while working as a nayak, certain charges were levelled against him ..... rigorous imprisonment is disproportionate to the offence committed by the petitioner.7. the prime relief sought by the petitioner is to declare the provisions of section 71(a), (b) and (c) of the army act as unconstitutional and ultra vires. therefore, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the supreme court in ram sarup v. union of .....

Ex. Havildar K.P. Pandey Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2003(3)SLJ463(Delhi)

..... to the post of havildar, he could not have been inflicted with the impugned punishment.(ii) the charges leveled against the petitioner purported to be under section 63 of the army act, were mala fide having regard to the backdrop of the case.(iii) the commandant had no jurisdiction to convene the district court martial.10. reliance in ..... on 15th february 1997 (saturday) and 16th february 1997 (sunday) where for no reason has been assigned.(vi) although in terms of section 133 of the army act, the provisions of the evidence act are applicable, it would appear that the cross-examination was done by court and the petitioner was not permitted to call his own defense witness ..... , the petitioner after his arrest on 27th july 1996 was attached to a different field regiment for his trial by a summary court martial.27. sections 116 and 120 of the army act read thus:'116. summary of court-martial.--(1) a summary court-martial may be held by the commanding officer of nay corps. department or detachment .....