Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1918Bom32; (1919)21BOMLR143
Marten, J.1. These suits raise an important question, viz., whether the pay of a British Officer in the Indian Army can be attached under the Civil Procedure Code.2. The question arises in execution in three suits, namely, a High Court suit No. 651 of 1917, a Small Causes Court suit No. 475/18039 of 1913, and a civil suit No. 413 of 1913 in the Poona Court. The decrees in the two latter suits have been sent to this Court for execution. The plaintiffs in the first two suits are the same. The defendant in each suit is a Major G. B. Murray. He is, and at all material dates has been, an officer in the Supply and Transport Corps of the Indian Army, and at the present time he is Commandant of the 58th Pack Mule Corps stationed at Quetta.3. In the first-mentioned suit the decree was made on the 9th October 1917, and, on the 1st December 1917, the plaintiffs obtained an order under Order XXI, Rule 48 from the Acting Prothonotary, Mr. Malabari, attaching a moiety of Major Murray's pay. Under th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1958)60BOMLR159
..... a criminal court', and under section 3(viii) 'criminal court' is defined as 'a court oil ordinary criminal justice in any part of india, other than the state ..... been committed by accused no. 1 along with others, the provisions of sections 125 and 126 of the army act read with the relevant rules framed under the act, have not been complied with.15. in order to examine these submissions, it would be necessary to deal in some detail with the provisions of the army act, 1950, and the rules made thereunder. section 2(1) of the act gives a list of persons who are subject to the act. under section 3(ii) 'civil offence' is denned as 'an offence which is triable by .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1912)14BOMLR777; 13Ind.Cas.853
Chandavarkar, Acting C.J.1. We are indebted to Mr. Shah for having undertaken to argue this case as amicus curice for the respondent but we do not wish to call upon him to reply to Mr. Desai who has put the case before us very clearly and there is no doubt upon the law that the lower Courts have taken the correct view.2. The whole question depends upon the construction of the (3) ILR (1911) All. 529. words of Clause 2 (b) of Section 60, Civil Procedure Code, viz., 'Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of the Array Act or of any similar law for the time being in force.'3. Section 136 of the Statute 44 & 45 Vie. Clause 58, amended in 1895, provides that the salary of an Officer in the British Army serving in India shall be paid to him without deduction unless the Legislature in India has directed to the contrary in that behalf.4. The question, therefore, is whether there is any such direction in any Act of the Indian Legislature. The only law bearing upon that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1958CriLJ1144
..... the offences alleged to have been committed by accused no. 1 along with others, the provisions of sections 125 and 126 of the army act read with the relevant rules framed under the act, have not been complied with.14. in order to examine these submissions, it would be necessary to deal in some detail with the provisions of the army act, 1950, and the rules made thereunder. section 2 (1) of the act gives a list of persons who are subject to the act, under section 3 (ii) 'civil offence' is defined as 'an offence which is triable by a criminal court', and under s .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(3)ALLMR228
..... be recorded immediately. thereafter in march 1998 a court martial was ordered against him and charges were framed on 18/7/1998 for the offences under sections 52(f) and 57(a) of the army act, 1950. the general court martial convicted the petitioner for the first and the fifth charge i.e. under sections 52(f) and 57(a) of the army act, 1950 on 11/8/1998 and on the same day after hearing, he was sentenced to be dismissed from service. this order of conviction and sentence was submitted for confirmation ..... brother-in-law. the certificate was not prepared by the petitioner and in routine course it was prepared by his subordinates and he signed the same when it was placed before him.section 57(a) of the army act, 1950 reads as under:57. falsifying official documents and false declaration-any person subject to this act who commits any of the following offences, that is to say(a) in any report, return, list, certificate, book or other document made or signed by him or of the contents of which .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1963Bom21; (1962)64BOMLR440; 1963CriLJ152; ILR1962Bom523
Tambe, J.1. Facts material for the purposes of this appeal in brief are: The petitioner Mr. Gopalan is an Ex-Army Officer. On 14th January 1955 he was convicted by a Court Martial under Section 409 Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 40,000/-. The Military Authorities sent a copy of the sentence to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nasik, for the purpose of recovering the amount of fine. The Magistrate in his turn, in execution of the order of sentence, attached the following properties on 6th November 1955:1. Three Life Insurance Policies;2. Saving Bank Account of Rs. 10,000/- in the Punjab National Bank, Nasik Branch;3 A Radio; and4. A motor car bearing registration No. BML 2403;and since the date of the attachment the property has been taken in the custody of the Court. The car has subsequently been sold for Rs. 4,675/- and the amount is in Court. Petitioner's wife Mrs. C. V. Gopalan filed before the Magistrate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1997(2)BomCR433
..... did this mistake of not reporting to military hospital, poona, bombay or any other military hospital for medical treatment.' on the basis of the fact that he had been absent without sufficient cause he was charge-sheeted under section 39(b) of the army act, 1950. the charge was to the effect that ' at misamari while granted annual leave w.e.f. 10th november 1988 to 12th january, 1989 he failed to rejoin the unit on expiry of the said leave till voluntarily ..... earlier for the same misconduct i.e. being absent without authorised leave. on 14th may, 1981 he was punished for 7 days detention under section 39(b) of the army act for overstaying leave without sufficient cause. on 12th november, 1982 he was punished for 28 days imprisonment under section 39(b) of the army act and under section 48(1) of the army act for overstaying leave without sufficient cause and for being found intoxicated when on duty. it is further the case of the respondents that having been dismissed from service, the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1945)47BOMLR981
Patrick Spens, Kt., C.J.1. The appellant in this case, A.W. Mears, was in April, 1943, a Captain holding the temporary rank of Major in the Royal Engineers, and was attached to No. 1 Works Service (E. & M.) Group I. E. In October, 1943, he was charged with four offences under the Army Act. The charges, without the particulars which are not material to this judgment, were as follows:1st Charge, A.A. Section 17.- When on active service, when concerned in the care of public property, fraudulently misapplying the same.2nd Charge, A.A. Section 40.- alternative to 1st charge.- When on active service, neglected to the prejudice of good order and military discipline.3rd Charge, A.A. Section 17.- When on active service, when concerned in the care of regimental property, fraudulently misapplying the same.4th Charge, A.A. Section 40.- alternative to 3rd charge.- When on active service neglected to the prejudice of good order and military discipline.The appellant was ordered to be tried by a Field...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1956Bom601
..... be made by the parliament.9. on the issue of the maintainability of the suit, the plea being in demurrer, i must assume that the dismissal of the plaintiff was not in accordance with the provisions of the army act and the rules and regulations made thereunder.if the tenure of the service, however, was during the pleasure of the president can it be said that the plaintiff still has a right of action for dismissal? the argument here was that the effect of sections 22 to 24, army act of 1950 and the rules and regulations made thereunder was that the service of the plaintiff could not be regarded as during the pleasure of the president.10. this argument must be negatived. in the first place .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005CriLJ4478
..... singh's case, the contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner that, it applies exclusively to the case where the person undergoes the imprisonment under the army act, is totally devoid of substance. undisputedly, the apex court in the said case was dealing with the matter wherein the concerned person was undergoing life imprisonment pursuant to the conviction under sec. 302 of the i.p.c. read with sec. 69 of the army act, 1950. nevertheless, the apex court therein has clearly held that 'section 433-a would operate in the field and a prisoner who is undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life and is convicted for an offence for which death is one .....
Tag this Judgment!