Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: army act 1950 section 31 privileges of reservists Court: delhi Page 3 of about 103 results (0.108 seconds)

Brig. R.P. Singh Vsm Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 114(2004)DLT792; 2004(77)DRJ480

..... or to lay down any condition or restriction or reservation on the power of such confirming authority otherwise than by virtue of issuance of a warrant under section 154 of the army act, 1950.21. there is no dispute that respondent no.4 was functioning as goc, 11 corps. since the sentence awarded to the petitioner in the instant ..... entitled k.k. taneja v. union of india & anr. however, we find that in this case, no warrant authorising an officer in terms of sections 154 and 166 of the army act, 1950 was produced before the court. as such, the ratio of this judgment would have no application to the instant case.32. the questions raised by the ..... same have not attained the force of law. according to the respondents, no regulations have been framed under the provisions of the army act, 1950 till date as envisaged under section 192, 193 and 193a of the act. the defense service regulations are not statutory in nature and it is so indicated in the preface thereto. thereforee, such regulations, .....

Sep Ashok Kumar Vs. Chief of the Army Staff and Others

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

..... by cdr meerut sub area (annx p-3). we notice from the show cause notice that on 16 dec 1992 the applicant was charged under army act section 48 (2) intoxication and army act section 40 (c) using insubordinate language to a superior officer. there are two punishments recorded that it is 7 days ri in military custody and ..... same. all the punishments awarded by col e t mathew were as follows : (a) 22 dec 1992 - army act section 48 - intoxication and insubordinate language. (b) 17 nov 1993 army act section 63 - unauthorised possession of govt property. (c) 19 nov 1993 army act section 41 (2) - disobeying lawful command of superior officer. 17. the applicant was serving with vsd which, although ..... entries as under:-ser no.date of offencetype of offencepunishment awarded(a)25 dec 91aa sec 48 intoxication1. deprived of acting rank of naik2. pay fine of 14 days(b)16 dec 9(i) aa sec 48 (2) intoxication(ii) aa sec 40 (c) using insubordinate language to his superior officer7 days ri in military custody. .....

Kailash Chandra Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

..... findings are not supported by evidence. it was reiterated that the dismissal from service is not a punishment contained in the hierarchy of punishment as listed in army act section 71 or section 40(b). therefore, that illegal punishment needs to be set aside and the appellant be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. 6. counsel for the ..... , the second punishment of dismissal was converted into discharge. 4. it was argued by counsel for the appellant that dismissal was not a punishment as listed in army act section 71, wherein the punishments which are awardable by a court martial are listed. therefore, for the goc-in-c to award him this punishment was illegal and ..... taken, which culminated in the scm of 31.8.1995, wherein he was awarded three months rigorous imprisonment and dismissal from service, for three charges as under: army act section 36(c) leaving his post without orders from his superior officer. in that he, at unit loc, between 0045h and 0130h on 12 aug 95, when on .....

Lt Col Hardev Singh Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

..... is against the general court martial proceedings, whereby the appellant (lt col hardev singh) was held guilty of having committed the offence under section 69 of the army act read with section 354 of the indian penal code and sentenced to be dismissed from service. the writ petition stood transferred to this tribunal and was treated to ..... accused. it is not for the accused, in any situation, to question the provisions contained in army act section 125. in order to answer the rival contentions made by learned counsel for the parties, it would be useful to quote army act sections 125. it reads: 125. choice between criminal court and court-martial. when a criminal court ..... it should have been tried by a civil court and the provisions of section 69 of the army act were illegally applied in this case. 14. this was responded to by counsel for the respondents by stating that the provisions contained in army act section 125 are not discriminatory and they give discretion to the authority to decide .....

Indian Defence Service of Engineers Association (Govt. Approved) Vs. U ...

Court : Delhi

..... of the mes continued to be governed by other existing instructions. no separate criterions were prescribed in 1959 for the army officers who were part of mes. in this background the military engineer services (army personnel) regulations, 1989 were formulated under section 192, army act, 1950. the composition of the mes was described as comprising of''..the officers, junior commissioned officers and other ranks of the ..... by saying that mes could not have been restructured by the central government by framing them under the army act, 1950. this amounted to changing the structure and framework of mes, an independent body that is not within the scope and ambit of section 192 of the army act; changing of structure of mes is not within the scope of power of the central government under .....

Ex. Sep. Shambhu Singh Vs. the Union of India and Others

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

..... at field on 12 dec 97 on the expiry of the said leave until voluntarily rejoined at adm bn amc centre and school lucknow on 27 may 98 (an). army act 1950 section 39(a) absenting himself without leave in that he, atlucknow absented himself without leave from adm bn amc centre and school lucknow from 31 may 98 (fn) ..... contentions made by learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to reproduce the charge sheet, by which the appellant was tried by the scm. it reads: army act 1950 section 39(b) without sufficient cause overstaying leave granted to him in that he, at field on 16 oct 97 having been granted leave of absence from 17 oct ..... 5. the scm was held on 19 may,2000 by col. r. n. sharma, sr. registrar mh jabalpur, wherein the appellant was charged under army act section 39 a for absenting himself without leave and army act section 39 b without sufficient caused overstaying leave granted to him (charge sheet at annx. p-2.) . the appellant pleaded guilty on both charges (annex. k .....

Ex Maj Yr Sharma Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

..... , details of which are given in column (d) of annexure iv, thereby causing loss to the government to the tune of rs.31,240/-. the sixth charge is under army act section 63, which is an alternative charge to fifth charge. charge no. 7 alleges that the appellant did not take action to credit the stores in the ledger, details of which ..... no.rao/mes/audit objs 4/01 to 3/02 amc dated 1.7.2003. a request was also made therein to make a preliminary investigation. in this letter, army act section 122 was also referred to. it does not contain the name of the appellant though involvements of retd/posted out officers were shown. again as per the letter dated 23 ..... the period june 2001 and november 2001 to may 2002. after audit objection, the court martial was convened only on 23.9.2005. it is, therefore, barred by limitation under army act section 122. in this regard, the letter dated 10.10.2003 sent by hq centre and school, lucknow to hqs central command (dv branch), lucknow-2 was referred to stating .....

Shish Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 115(2004)DLT619; 2005(80)DRJ422; 2006(1)SLJ395(Delhi)

..... the petitioner, which is explicitly clear on a bare reading of section 2 of the army act read with note-4 appended thereto. in support of the aforesaid contention, the counsel also referred to the provisions of section 5 of the indian reserve forces act, 1950 and the indian reserve forces rules, 1955.8. in the light ..... of the aforesaid submissions, we have carefully perused the records, which were placed before us and also the relevant provisions of the law which were referred to by the counsel appearing for thee parties. the provisions of section 2(1)(c) and section 2(2) of the army act ..... was issued, which was served on the petitioner. thereforee, the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of the army act, particularly section 20(3) of the army act are not applicable to the petitioner and that exemption from training is accepted under defense service regulations, are found to be without any merit .....

H.S Dhillon Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi

..... sufficient funds with the said bank to meet the said cheque and having no reasonable grounds for supposing that the said cheque would be honoured when presented. sixth charge army act section 63 (alternative to the fifth charge) an omission prejudicial to good order and military dislcipline, in that he, at bangalore, between 15 feb 85 to 22 ..... funds with the said bank to meet the said cheque asd having no reasonable grounds for supposing that the said cheque would be honoured when presented. third charge army act section 45 being an officer behaving in a manner unbecoming his position and character expected of him, in that he, at madras, on 17 march 84, in exchange ..... of pay and allowances by crediting it to his savings account. on 11.7.1986, the appellant was issued a charge sheet, which contained six charges under army act sections 45 and 63. thereafter an order convening court martial was issued by goc 31 armoured division. the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. but the gcm .....

Harminder Kumar (Cap.) Vs. Union of India

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 1998VIAD(Delhi)368; 75(1998)DLT597

..... 127. the facts in that case, as noticed by the supreme court, are:-'on 30-8-1986, action was initiated against the respondent under section 123 of the army act, 1950 (for short `the act'). he was kept under open arrest from that date onwards and retired from service on 31-8-1986 as major general. on 22-9-1986, ..... with a view to cause further delay, he even appealed against the verdict of the medical board.'14. the division bench had referred to sections 122 & 123 of the army act, 1950, and in particular, section 122. dealing with the question of limitation, the bench observed:-'offence in the instant case is stated to have taken place on 13/ ..... the show-cause notice was issued and that was issued without any justification owing to the bar under section 122 of the army act, 1950. the respondents had admitted that court martial proceedings had become time barred under section 122 of the army act, 1950. thereforee, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, mr.g.d.gupta, the case of .....