Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: army act 1950 section 40 striking or threatening superior officers Court: supreme court of india Page 1 of about 446 results (0.427 seconds)

Union of India and ors. Vs. Subedar Ram Narain

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1998SC3225; JT1998(6)SC383; 1998LabIC3530; (1999)ILLJ77SC; 1998(5)SCALE278; (1998)8SCC52; [1998]Supp1SCR616

..... president then the result is that the dismissed junior commissioned officer remains disentitled to pension or gratuity.10. the terms of regulation 16(a) are clearly different from regulation 113(a). according to regulation 16(a) when an officer, as defined in section 3(xviii) of the army act, 1950, is cashiered or dismissed or removed from service then the president has the discretion of either forfeiting his pension or ordering that he be granted pension at a lesser rate. the dismissal, removal etc. of a commissioned officer does ..... while he was serving with 75 medium regiment he was kept in close arrest with effect from 17.11.1988 and was then court-martialed under the provisions of the army act. he was charged under section 40(a), using criminal force to his superior officer, and section 48 of the army act, 1950 for being in a state of intoxication while on duty.3. the general court martial found the respondent guilty and thereupon he was dismissed from service on 01.08.1989. he filed .....

Extra Judl.Exec.Victim Families Assnandanr Vs. Union of India and Anr

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... militant or terrorist or insurgent, is an enemy within the aforesaid definition [section 3(x) of the army act, 1950]. and it is the bounden duty of all army personnel to act against a militant or a terrorist or an insurgent, while he is deployed in a disturbed area under afspa. in case army personnel do not act against an enemy or show cowardice, it is a court-martial offence under army act section 34, punishable with death. [7]. reference is made to ex ..... are not only terrorist organizations or terrorist gangs (as defined in section 2(l) of the uapa)[34]. but are unlawful associations, for they threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of india. would membership of such an organization incriminate a person?. this will be discussed a little later. (iv) the army act, 1950 103. the army act, 1950 (for short the army act ) is of considerable importance for deciding the present controversy. a person subject to the army act is said to be in active service if that person is, inter .....

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

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... some of the charges and decide whether the punishment imposed on the respondent was lenient or not. thereupon, the respondent filed writ petition no. 5451 of 1997 challenging aforementioned order dated june 14, 1997 as well as validity of sections 153, 154 and 160 of the army act, 1950. writ petition no. 5451 of 1997 was filed by the respondent without prejudice to the contentions and averments made in criminal writ petition no. 726 of 1996.in view of the directions from the confirming authority, gcm was convened. the ..... by the commanding officer i.e. commander 35 infantry brigade under whom the respondent was working at the relevant time. the commanding officer, vide order dated october 30, 1996 invoked the provisions of section 123 of the army act 1950, and took the respondent into close custody as superannuation of the respondent was due on october 31, 1996 and it was apprehended that the respondent would flee the course of justice.the respondent filed criminal writ petition 726 of 1996 .....

Union of India and Others Vs. Sadha Singh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1999SC3833; 1999(2)ALD(Cri)815; 2000CriLJ15; 1999(3)Crimes263(SC); JT1999(8)SC337; 1999(6)SCALE594; (1999)8SCC375; [1999]Supp4SCR28

..... writ petition no. 1752 of 1997 filed by the respondent.3. respondent was awarded life imprisonment and dismissed from service by the general court martial after being tried for the of fence under section 302 i.p.c. and under section 69 of the army act, 1950. he preferred a writ petition in the high court for his immediate release from the imprisonment on the ground that he has undergone imprisonment exceeding 14 years. the high court arrived ..... do their bounds divide' the two are different, section 433a escapes the exclusion of section 5.7. in the present case, respondent was convicted under section 69 of the army act, 1950 for the of fence of murder. it is true that army act is a special act inter alia providing for investigation, trial and punishment for the of fences mentioned therein by a special procedure. section 177 empowers the central government to make rules in respect of prisons and prisoners. sections 179 to 190 provide for pardon, remissions and suspension of the sentence .....

Union of India and ors. Vs. Ex-gnr Ajeet Singh

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... served upon the respondent on 11.3.2003, and it contained six charges, under the provisions of the army act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the army act'). after the conclusion of the gcm proceedings, the respondent was awarded punishment vide order dated 3.4.2003, as has been referred to hereinabove.d. the sentence awarded in the gcm was confirmed by the competent authority, i.e. chief of the army staff, while dealing with the petition under section 164(2) of the army act. after such confirmation of sentence, the respondent was handed over to the civil jail at agra ..... gun 9 mm on 27.9.2002. iii) charged under army act section 39(a) - absent from duty without leave from 26.2.2002 to 8.3.2002.iv) charged under army act section 39(a) - absent from duty without leave from 12.6.2002 to 2.9.2002.v) charged under army act section 39(a) - absent from duty without leave from 4.9.2002 to 27.9.2002. vi) charged under army act section 69 - possessing counterfeit seal with intent to commit forgery .....

Major E.G. Barsay Vs. the State of Bombay

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1961SC1762; 1961CriLJ828; [1962]2SCR195

..... judge, poona, had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences with which the accused were charged and that they should have been tried only by a court martial under the army act. 18. the argument of learned counsel for the appellant may be briefly stated thus : the army act, 1950 (46 of 1950) created new offences. section 52 of the said act created offences with which accused in the present case were charged, and provided a new machinery, namely, a court martial, to try persons committing the said offences. therefore by necessary implication the trial .....

Sep. Satgur Singh Vs. Union of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1857 OF2018SEP. SATGUR SINGH .....APPELLANT(S) UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S) VERSUS JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J.1)2) The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed on April 30, 2014 by the Armed Forces Tribunal1, Chandigarh, Regional Bench at Chandimandir whereby, the discharge of the appellant on account of seven red ink entries during his 11 years 9 months and 15 days service was not found to be unjustified. The appellant was served with a show-cause notice on September 22, 2004 that the appellant has proved himself undesirable and retention in service is not considered suitable, in respect of seven punishments: two in the year 1995; one in the year 1998; two in the year 2000; and two in the year 2004. The details of his punishments seven times are as under: (a) U/s 39(a) of Army Act (b) U/s 51 of Army Act (c) U/s 39(a) of Army Act 21 days RI on 02.09.1995 28 days RI on 07.09.1995...

Madan Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : (2002)10SCC185

..... of the allahabad high court in the case state v. jaikaran singh1. the question whether the court martial has the jurisdiction to try a person who commits an offence has to be adjudged from the provisions of the army act itself and not with reference to the criminal procedure code. a bare reading of section 70 of the army act makes it crystal clear that a person who commits an offence of murder against a person not subject to military, naval or air force law, or of culpable homicide not amounting to murder against ..... b. pattanaik and; n. santosh hegde, jj.1. the appellant faced a proceeding of court martial under the provisions of the army act, 1950 whereunder he has been found guilty and has been sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years and has also been dismissed from service. the appellant after exhausting the remedies available to him under the provisions of the army act moved the high court under article 226 of the constitution. the division bench of the delhi high court dismissed the .....

Union of India and ors. Vs. Bodupalli Gopalaswami.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... reasons for the forfeiture of the pension and pensionary benefits. 10. for this purpose, the high court relied upon the decision of the delhi high court in brig. a. k. malhotra. in the said decision, the delhi high court held that under section 71 of the army act, 1950 (`act' for short), forfeiture of pension was provided as a measure of punishment for offences tried by the court martial and if the court martial did not, in a given case, think it fit to forfeit the pension while awarding the punishment, then the only inference tha ..... 4. the first respondent, who was the commandant of the supply depot was also issued a charge-sheet dated 30.12.1992 containing the following charges : first charge such an offence as is mentioend in clause (f) of section 52 army act of the army act with intent to defraud, section 52(f) in that he, at ambala cantonment, on 14 feb.1990, while commanding 27 company supply (asc), being contract operating officer for meat dressed, with intent to defraud caused the .....

Union of India and ors. Vs. Ajit Singh

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... served upon the respondent on 11.3.2003, and it contained six charges, under the provisions of the army act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as `the army act ). after the conclusion of the gcm proceedings, the respondent was awarded punishment vide order dated 3.4.2003, as has been referred to hereinabove. d. the sentence awarded in the gcm was confirmed by the competent authority, i.e. chief of the army staff, while dealing with the petition under section 164(2) of the army act. after such confirmation of sentence, the respondent was handed over to the civil jail at agra ..... gun 9 mm on 27.9.2002. iii) charged under army act section 39(a) absent from duty without leave from 26.2.2002 to 8.3.2002. iv) charged under army act section 39(a) absent from duty without leave from 12.6.2002 to 2.9.2002. v) charged under army act section 39(a) absent from duty without leave from 4.9.2002 to 27.9.2002. vi) charged under army act section 69 possessing counterfeit seal with intent to commit forgery .....