Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1937All129
Thom, J.1. The following question has been referred for decision : 'Is the pay of an Assistant Surgeon of the Indian Medical Department liable to attachment in execution of an order for maintenance and alimony passed by a civil Court?'2. The question has arisen in connexion with an application made by one Norbert Edwin Nugent, an Assistant Surgeon of the Indian Medical Department, who was the respondent in Matrimonial suit No. 3 of 1934. The petitioner in that suit was awarded the sum of Rs. 150 per mensem, and on 15th February 1985, this Court passed an ex parte order directing the Controller of Military Accounts, Northern Command, Rawalpindi, to deduct a sum of Rs. 150 per mensem from the pay of the respondent and to remit the same to this Court to be paid to the petitioner. The respondent thereupon presented an application to this Court praying that the order of 15th February attaching his salary be withdrawn. The learned Government Advocate, who appeared for the applicant, contende...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 9Ind.Cas.1023
1. On the 24th day of December 1900 the Bank of Upper India Limited obtained a money-decree against three Officers of His Majesty's Regular Forces. No application for execution of this, decree, as the term is ordinarily understood, was made until the 8th day of April 1910 when the decree-creditor applied to the Subordinate Judge of Meerut for execution of the decree by attachment of half of the salary of one of the said Officers, Colonel R. Lecky, appellant to this appeal.2. The judgment-debtor, Colonel R. Lecky, objected to the attachment proposed by the decree-creditor on the grounds that:1. the application was barred;2. his salary was not liable to attachment;3. the decree does not empower the decree-holder to realise under it certain premiums alleged by the decree-holder to have been paid in order to keep alive certain insurance policies held by the Bank as security for the monies originally advanced by the said Bank.3. Other objections were raised, but the present appeal is not co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2001(4)AWC2794; (2001)3UPLBEC2202
..... him. if the accused desires to have it in a language which he understands, a translation thereof shall also be given to him.'14. from the facts of the case, it is clear that the petitioner was not in active service as defined in section 3(4) of army act, 1950, hence the charge-sheet was required to be given to him at least before 96 hours of his arraignment. copy of the charge-sheet has been filed along with the writ petition at page 102 of the paper ..... staff dated 28.5.1999, rejecting the statutory petition dated 4.4.1998. the counsel for the petitioner has complained violation of section 169(3) of army act, 1950 and rule 203 of the army rules, 1954, section 169 of the act provides :'169. execution of sentence of imprisonment.--(1) whenever any sentence of imprisonment is passed under this act by a court martial or whenever any sentence of death or transportation is commuted to imprisonment, the confirming officer in case of a summary court martial the officer holding the court or such .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2004)1UPLBEC266
..... any offence punishable under this act.(2) where there is no grave reason for immediate action and reference can without detriment to discipline be made to the office empowered to ..... were not done in accordance with the provisions of the army act and the rules. the orders dated 6.7.1992 passed in the summary court martial and dated 10.4.1993 passed by respondents, thus, deserve to be set aside. before giving my reasons for my conclusion, some of the relevant provisions of the army act and rules may be reproduced below:--the army, 1950--'section 120. powers of summary courts martial.--(1) subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), a summary court martial may try .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(2)ESC892
Shishir Kumar, J.1. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the Order of discharge dated 16.9.1995 under Rule 13 (III) (v) of the Army Rules.2. The fact arising out of the present writ petition is that the petitioner joined the Indian Army as Sipahi on 22.6.1984 and after completion of 11 years, two months and two days, has been discharged from service on 16.9.1995. The petitioner's case is that petitioner has got a clean service record and has participated in the operation of Sri Lanka and he is a disciplined soldier and, therefore, the Order of discharge under the aforesaid Rule is illegal and is liable to be set aside. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was given only five days leave to attend his seriously ill wife from Pathankot to Fatehpur which was insufficient and a telegram was sent by the petitioner for its extension and no reply was given by the authorities and, as such, the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2002(3)AWC1969; (2002)3UPLBEC2098
..... artillery 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 iv of the army rules. 1954 (hereinafter referred to as army rules). the petitioner filed writ petition no. 5526 of 2002, jay shiv kushwaha v. union of india and ors., challenging his discharge order .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(1)ESC255
..... any information. subsequently on 6th of may, 1996 a letter to the superintendent of police ballia was issued for apprehending the petitioner and copy of that letter was also sent to the wife of the petitioner under section 105 of the army act, 1950. section 105 of the army act is quoted below :'105. capture of deserters--(1) whenever any person subject to this act deserts, the commanding officer of the corps, department or detachment to which he belongs, shall give written information of the desertion to such civil authorities as, in his opinion, may be ..... for more than 30 days. thereafter, the petitioner was declared as a deserter vide order dated 20.6.1996. section 106 of the army act, 1950 deals with capture of deserters and inquiry into absence without leave. section 106 is quoted as below :'106. inquiry into absence without leave--(1) whenever any person subject to this act has been absent from his duty without due authority for a period of thirty days a court of inquiry shall, as .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : II(1998)DMC731
D.K. Seth, J.1. Two appeals being Special Appeal No. 317 of 1996 by Union of India and Special Appeal No. 376 of 1996 by Subedar Deena Nath Tiwari have been preferred respectively against the same judgment dated 1.3.1996 passed in Writ Petition No. 9726 of 1989. While the Union of India challenged the whole order dated 1.3.1996, Subedar Deena Nath Tiwari challenged only that part of the order, by which the salary for the period from termination till reinstatement was directed to be considered by the Authorities after the proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is finally decided.2. Both these appeals were heard together. Mr. Shishir Kumar appeared on behalf of Union of India, appellant in Special Appeal No. 317ofl996and respondent in Special Appeal No. 376 of 1996. Mr. Ashok Khare represented Subedar Deena Nath Tiwari, appellant in Special Appeal No. 376 of 1996 and respondent in Special Appeal No. 317 of 1996. Both the learned Counsel addressed the Court on ever...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1998(4)AWC392
D. K. Seth, J. 1. The petitioner was subjected to District Court Marshal and awarded punishment of dismissal by order dated 15.6.1988, contained inAnnexure-4 to the writ petition along with two other punishments viz., six months imprisonment and reduction in rank. The appeal thereof also stood dismissed by order dated 2.6.1989, contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition. These orders are under challenge in the present writ petition.2. Mr. G. D. Mukerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order on several grounds. Relying on Rule 31, he submitted that charge-sheet is to be issued by the Commanding Officer whereas in the present case the same has been signed by the Administrative Commandant who is in the category of other such officers and is not a Commanding Officer. Therefore, the charge-sheet being invalid the whole proceeding is vitiated and is liable to be struck off. He secondly submits that there has been an infraction in compliance of Rule 22 of the Army Rul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1990)IILLJ109All
..... at the summary of evidence the petitioner was charge-sheeted, the charge being theft of a double-barrel gun and a single-barrel gun, both of non-service pattern, said to be war trophies captured in 1971 war and entrusted to the petitioner's unit, punishable under section 52(a) of the army act, 1950. the charge-sheet dated september 18,1982 was issued by the commanding officer of the petitioner's regiment asking the petitioner to appear at the summary court martial on september 19, 1982 to be presided over by the commanding officer for answering the charge. the respondents .....
Tag this Judgment!