Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: border security force act 1968 section 83 law officer Page 10 of about 48,222 results (1.470 seconds)

Suresh Prasad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Jharkhand

Reported in : [2006(1)JCR422(Jhr)]

..... and 5th november, 2003, sent on his leave address but neither he reported for duty nor sent any information/reply to the said letters. as per section 62 of the border security force act, 1968, court of inquiry was ordered vide officer order no. 13271-76 dated 27.12.2003 and apprehension roll was also issued to the superintendent of police, gopalganj. a show ..... .4. petitioner's case is that he overstayed the leave of two month, by six months as he was suffering from lumbo sciatica syndrome. relying on rule 22 of the border security force rules, 1969, it is submitted that departmental proceeding should have been initiated against him before passing the impugned order of dismissal. he relied on the judgment of this court in .....

Harendra Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Jharkhand

Reported in : [2003(2)JCR668(Jhr)]

..... general security force court. thus, as the confirmation is not required of the court order under section 114, obvious it ..... commandant is somewhat arbitrary and illegal. consequently, it is found that against the summary security force court order (hereinafter referred to as the court order), there is no appeal because under section 114, the order of the summary security force court do not require confirmation, whereas under section 117 of the border security force act, 1968. the appeal lies to the confirming authority against the order of a .....

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Iqbal Singh Cheema

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1996SC426; 1995(6)SCALE137; 1995Supp(4)SCC84; [1995]Supp4SCR406; 1996(1)LC555(SC)

..... by the appellant i.s. cheema against the same order passed by gauhati high court. in a court martial proceeding initiated against i. s. cheema under the border security 'force act, 1968 and the consequential punishment of dismissal, a writ petition was moved before the gauhati high court by 1. s. cheema who at the relevant time ..... contest the said proceedings. it was also contended that the court martial itself was not properly constituted because one of the members was a commandant in the border security force but such member was junior to him in seniority. it appears that by the impugned order, the high court has accepted both the contentions and accordingly ..... martial proceeding was initiated on a charge of corruption by directing subordinate officers to arrange for weekly payments to the said commandant by encouraging smuggling activities in the border. before the high court, the said i. s. cheema contended that the court, martial had not been properly conducted in view of the fact that .....

Civil Writ Petition No. 9973 of 2013(Oandm) Vs. Civil Writ Petition No ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

..... no manner of doubt that the land, in dispute, where a gram panchayat has decided to erect a statue of a resident of the village, who died while working in border security force, is part of a pond/johar, reserved during consolidation. the hon'ble supreme court of india, while dealing with a similar question with regard to obligation of gram panchayat, ..... not denied that a part of the johar is being used for the purpose of laying a statue of a resident of the village, who died while working in the border security force. an order dated 09.05.2013 was passed by this court while issuing notice of motion. a relevant extract of this order is quoted herein under:- civil writ petition ..... show cause notice has been issued to the sarpanch vide letter no.3230/panchayat dated 14.05.2013, as to why action under section 51 of the haryana panchayati raj act, 1994, should not be taken against him. similarly, the concerned gram civil writ petition no.9973 of 2013(o&m) 5 sachiv has also been issued a notice .....

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

Court : Guwahati

..... central govt. standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused, the records. 6. admittedly, for commission of civil offence as defined under section 46 of 'the border security force act, 1968' (shortly the act), the ssfc was assembled to enquire/try the petitioner on the charge framed and after recording the evidence allowing all opportunities, the ssfc vide verdict dated 30.10.1999 ..... ' and acquitted him from the charge. the respondent no. 5 forwarded the entire proceeding to the dig, respondent no. 4 who having exercised his power under rule 160 of 'the border security force rules, 1969' (shortly the rules) held the petitioner 'guilty' of committing robbery by forcibly snatching away rs. 50,000 from civilian billai hussain and imposed the penalty of dismissal from .....

Shri Ganga Singh Sengar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 131(2006)DLT228; 2007(3)SLJ496(Delhi)

..... (copy of this order is annexed to the petition as annexure p-3). the petitioner had preferred an appeal against this order in terms of section 117 of the border security force act. however, on 9.4.85 the petitioner was informed that the appeal of the petitioner had been rejected. both these orders have been challenged by the petitioner in this ..... swatanter kumar, j.1. the petitioner was serving as a head constable being head constable no. 66243089 in the 22nd battalion of the border security force with headquarters at firozpur, punjab. by that time the petitioner had put in nearly 18 years of service. the competent authority on 11.1.84 issued a show ..... overstaying leave granted to him 'reprimand'.(g) under bsf act 21 (2): disobeying a lawful command given by his superior officer 'severe reprimand'.with above report of punishment, i have come to the conclusion that you are a habitual offenders and considered not fit for retaining in the force.you are directed to forward your reply to the show .....

Universal Music India Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Delhi

Reported in : [2008]87SCL51(Delhi)

..... singh, upon a consideration of the statutory scheme and legislative intent, the apex court held that the authority which disposed of a post-confirmation petition under the border security force act, 1968 and rules framed there under is not a court and every order passed administratively cannot be subjected to the rigors of principles of natural justice.62 ..... 399(4).28. it is noteworthy that the statutory scheme contains a similar power under section 237 of the companies act. this section again empowers the central government to appoint investigators to investigate the force of a company and to report thereon if, inter alia, 'in the opinion' of the central government, there ..... limited case (supra); (ii) sub-section 5 of section 399 of the companies act empowers the central government before authorising any member or members as contemplated by sub section 4 to require the applicant or applicants to give security for the payment of any costs which the court dealing with the application may order .....

State of U.P. and anr. Vs. Sri Ram Baboo Kesari and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 1990CriLJ87

..... act or the rules operating in the area of section 482, cr.p.c. so as to override the latter and as such ..... retain the seized property. hence a case under foreign exchange regulation act (1947) cannot help the revisionist.37. further the revisionist cited the case of anand singh bishit v. union of india, 1986 cri lj 563 (cal), the case related to conviction and sentence under border security force act. considering the provisions of the act, it was held that there is no provision in the said .....

Sutendra Debbarma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Guwahati

..... capacity, the offence is nothing but a civil offence for which he was tried by the security force court in terms of section 47 of the border security force act (hereinafter referred to as 'act' for short). the term civil offence is defined by section 2(d) of the act as an offence which is triable by the criminal court, section 46 of the ..... act provides that subject to the provisions of section 47, any person subject to this act who at any place in, ..... was not on active duty at the time of the incident, it may be relevant to produce hereunder section 47 of the act. '47. civil offences not triable by a security force court. - a person subject to this act who commits an offence of murder or of culpable homicide not amounting to murder against, or of rape in relation to, .....

Ajai Kumar Roy Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2003CriLJ3999

..... a term which may extend to two years or such less punishment as is in the act mentioned. 13. section 28 of the border security force act, 1968 is also a verbatim reproduction of section 50 of the army act. section 50 of the army act provides for punishment to the officer who effects the arrest of his subordinate and fails to ..... report the arrest to his company or detachment commander who shall after investigating the case order the release or the continued arrest of the member of the force arrested.23. rule 33 of the border security force rules, 1969 ('bsf rules' for brevity) refers as to how 'close arrest' and 'open arrest' be imposed and the said rule reads as ..... act who is . charged with an offence may be taken in to military custody;2) any such person may be ordered into military custody by any superior officer;3) any officer may order into military custody any officer, though he may be of a higher rank, engaged in a quarrel, affray or disorder. 9. rule 40 of the border security force .....