Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: army act 1950 section 58 signing in blank and failure to report Year: 2005 Page 1 of about 11 results (0.065 seconds)

Varghese Vs. State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Reported in : 2005(2)KLT802

..... bailable offence, when the accused is brought or has appeared before the magistrate.6. section 70 of the army act, 1950, in short 'the army act', lays down that if a person subject to the army act commits an offence of murder, against a person not subject to the army act, that person shall not be tried by a court martial, unless he committed the ..... while in active service, or at any place outside india, or at a frontier post as notified by the government in this behalf.7. sections 125 and 126 of the army act are dealing with the situations where both the criminal court and court martial have got jurisdiction in respect of an offence and the procedure that ..... thereafter. in the case at hand, the offence had taken place not against any person subject to the army act, and the first accused, petitioner, is also not covered by any of the conditions contained under section 70 of the army act. therefore, under the available facts of the case, the magistrate can proceed against the accused, as per .....

Ali Jabed Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2005(2)ESC892

..... is warranted on the merits of the case, a wo or an nco may be reduced to one rank lower than his substantive rank under army act section 20(4).procedure for dismissal/ discharge of undesirable jcos/wos/or4. ar 13 and 17 provide that a jco/wo/or whose dismissal or discharge ..... :---------------------------------------------------------------date of award under section punishment awarded---------------------------------------------------------------9.7.1986 section 39(b) of the army act 28 days ri and 14 days detention in military custody.28.1.1992 section 39(b) of the army act 7 days ri22.6.1992 section 29(b) of the army act 28 days ri1.8.1995 under section 39(b) of 28 ..... days ri and 14 days the army act detention in military custody.---------------------------------------------------------------4. it has also been stated .....

Shri Suryakant @ Bandu Ranoji Andekar Vs. the State of Maharashtra, Th ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2005CriLJ4478

..... 'section 433-a would operate in the field and a prisoner who is undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life and is ..... 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 .....

Capt. Parveen Rawat and ors. Vs. State of J and K and ors.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

..... herein, were found to be involved in the scam and consequently g.o.c. 14 corps directed initiation , of action under army act 1950 against them for various acts of omission and commission punishable under army act. pursuant to his directions petitioners were removed from their respective posts on which they were posted and were attached to different units ..... served upon petitioner nos. 3&4. petitioner no. 3 has been charged for commission of offence under section 52f and 45 of army act whereas petitioner no. 4 for commission of offence under section 69 of the said act. summary of evidence is being collected and recorded. it is admitted case of the petitioners that they have ..... the case before the supreme court the appellants who had been convicted by court-martial for offences under the army act and were undergoing imprisonment had applied for benefit of the provision of set off contained in section 428 of central cr.p.c. the high court of punjab and haryana had rejected their claims. their .....

Capt. V.N. Saxena Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Uttaranchal

Reported in : 2005(3)SLJ196(NULL)

..... other two officers has been closed. suddenly in may, 1989, the petitioner received another show cause notice, purported to have been issued under section 19 of army act, 1950 read with rule 14 of army rules, 1954 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why his services be not terminated on the ground which were identical to those ..... for summary of evidence, implicating the petitioner nor thereafter new material was there on the basis of which fresh show cause notice under section 19 of army act, 1950 or order under rule 14 of army rules, could have been issued. it is also alleged in the writ petition that recovery of theft money was made from gnr udai ..... be plausible. had the petitioner been found guilty in inquiry, instead of holding court martial. respondent no. 2 could have proceeded under section 19 of the army act, 1950 read with rule 14 of the army rules, 1954, but it is not the case here. the officer along with other officers was not found guilty rather he was informed .....

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2006SC124; [2005(107)FLR840]; JT2005(12)SC515; 2005(8)SCALE397; (2005)8SCC760; 2006(1)SLJ312(SC)

..... concurrent jurisdiction; otherwise the expression 'as the case may be' would be rendered surplus and meaningless. reference was made to section 19 of the army act, 1959 (in short 'army act') and rule 14 of the army rules 1954 (in short 'army rules'). it was noted that the language was in pari materia, except the words 'as the case may be' ..... with corresponding section and rule of the act and the rules respectively. therefore, it was held that use of expression 'as the case ..... rule 8 of the transaction of business rules, 1961. (iv) the authorities have removed him from service without following the provisions of law contained in section 10 of the act read with rule 20 of rules, as the central government has neither recorded the satisfaction to the effect that it is inexpedient and impracticable to hold .....

Nb. Sub. Raj Pal Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 127(2006)DLT470

..... was having ihd, iscaemic heart disease.11. we have heard the respective counsels at length and have also perused the rival contentions. under section 18 of the army act, 1950, every person under the act holds office during the pleasure of the president and can be dismissed or removed from service subject to the provisions of the ..... act and the rules made there under. rules have been framed under the power under the act and chapter 3 of the army rule, 1954 relates to dismissal, ..... commensurating with his medical category subject to availability of sheltered appointment. every person who is placed in the low medical category can not be discharged from the army army act and the rules framed there under have to be followed. the petitioner could not be discharged merely on the basis of low medical category in the facts .....

Nawab Khan, Sub [No. 870021695] Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : 2006(2)JKJ255

..... punishable under section 52(a) of the army act. we have seen the evidence recorded in the inquiry under rule 22. it is a fact that the allegation at the stage of inquiry under rule 22 ..... out by respondents 2 and 3. it has been pleaded that the inquiry under rule 22 as against respondent no. 1 related to an offence which came under section 63 of the army act, namely, conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline, while the charge he was called upon to face in the general court martial was one of theft ..... same. similar question came up before the apex court in union of india and ors. v. naik subedar baleshwar ram and ors. : 1990crilj60a . in this case the army personnel was initially charged for offence under section 63 of army act, namely, conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline. for which he was heard under rule 22 of the .....

M.M. Malhotra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2006SC80; 2006(1)BomCR661; [2005(107)FLR1006]; JT2005(9)SC506; 2006(1)MhLj1; 2006MPLJ1(SC); 2005(8)SCALE202; (2005)8SCC351; 2006(1)SLJ303(SC)

..... army act 1950 (in short 'army act') and army rules, 1954 (in short 'army rules'). constitutional validity of rule 14 of the army rules which is on the same line as rule 16(4) of the rules was questioned in union of india v. capt., s.k. rao, : [1972]2scr447 . the challenge was found unsustainable. it was, inter alia, observed as follows:'14. section ..... issued to the appellant by which he was called upon to show-cause as to why he should not be dismissed/removed from service under section 19 of the air force act; 1950 (in short the 'act') read with rule 16 of the air force rules, 1969. the charges leveled in the show-cause notice against the appellant on the ..... to be cashiered or to suffer such less punishment as is in this act mentioned. for removal from service under section 19 of the army act read with rule 1-4 of the army rules, 1954, a court-martial is not necessary. the two sections 19 and 45 of the act are, therefore, mutually exclusive.'above being the position, the appellant's stand .....

Cpl Debasish Sen Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : RLW2006(1)Raj486

..... of each right. that would be reading with article 33 a requirement which it does not enjoin. hence, every provision of the army act enacted by the parliament, if in conflict with the fundamental rights conferred by part-iii, shall have to be read subject to article ..... 33 as mental rights to the extent of inconsistency or repugnancy between part iii of the constitution and the army act.24. in delhi police non-gazetted karmchari sangh and ors. v. union of india and ors. : (1987)illj121sc , it was held ..... , 2004, the petitioner had incurred 7 red ink entries. on 1.9.2004, one more show-cause notice along with extract of section iv conduct sheet of sheet roll from 16.8.2002 to 19.7.2040 was issued to the petitioner the effect that as to ..... red ink entries.4. on 31.12.2003, respondent no.2 issued a show cause notice (annex. 3) along with the extract of section iv of conduct sheet of sheet roll from 16.8.2002 to 15.8.2003. the petitioner gave reply dated 14.1.2004 (annex. .....