| Sl No. | Title | Coram | Date of Judgement | Subject | HeadNotes | |
| 1 | MAJOR E. G. BARSAY Vs. THE STATE OF BOMBAY | Coram: SUBBARAO, K. | 24/04/1961 | Criminal Trial-Criminal Misconduct-Army Officer tried by Special Judge-jurisdiction-Sanction for Prosecution given by Deputy Secretary-Validity-Investigation by Inspector of Police, Special Police Establishment, Delhi-Legality- Conspir | The appellant and five other persons, three of Them not being public servants, were charged with criminal conspiracy to dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriate or convert to their own use military stores and with dishonestly and fraudul | http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs.aspx |
| 2 | RAM SARUP Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER | Coram: SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ), WANCHOO, K.N., DAYAL, RAGHUBAR, AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA, MUDHOLKAR, J.R. | 12/12/1963 | Army Act (XLVI of 1950), ss. 125, 126 and 164-Scope of- Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 33-Effect on fundamental rights-s. 125 of Army Act if violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. | The General Court Martial sentenced the petitioner, a sepoy, to death under s. 69 of the Army Act read with s. 302 of the Indian 932 Penal Code for shooting dead two sepoys and a Havildar. The Central Government confirmed the sentence. The petiti | http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs.aspx |
| 3 | UNION OF INDIA Vs. S. K. RAO | Coram: SIKRI, S.M. (CJ) | 22/11/1971 | Army Act, 1950, ss. 19, 45 and 191 (2) (a), and Army Rules. 1954, r. 14-Whether r. 14, ultra vires. | The respondent, a commissioned officer in the Indian Army, was found to have committed acts of gross misconduct by a Court of Inquiry. The Chief of the Army Staff was of the opinion that his trial by a General Court Martial was inexpedi | http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs.aspx |
| 4 | DELHI SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT, NEW DELHI Vs. LT. COL. S. K. LORAIYA | Coram: DWIVEDI, S.N. | 24/08/1972 | Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, s. 549(1) and rules made thereunder--Army Act 1950, ss. 122 and 125-Army officer charged with offences under I.P.C. and Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 by Special Judge-Procedure under s. 549(1) an | The respondent who was an army officer was alleged to have committed certain offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The offences were alleged to have been committed in the year 1962. The special | http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs.aspx |
| 5 | CAPTAIN HARISH UPPAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS | Coram: ALAGIRISWAMI, A. | 27/11/1972 | Army Act, 1950, Sections 158 and 160-Upward revision of sentence Whether violative of natural justice principle in the circumstances of the case. Army Act, Section 160-Whether opportunity to be heard necessary when Confirming Officer de | The petitioner was found guilty by the Court Martial (acting under the Army Act) under section 392 IPC of committing robberies of a bank property and the private property of the Manager and peons of the Batik during the period of the libera | http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs.aspx |
| 6 | OUS KUTILINGAL ACHUDAN NAIR AND ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. | Coram: SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH | 20/11/1975 | Constitution of India, 1950-Art. 33-Scope of. Army Act, 1950, S.. 2(1)-Civilian employees of defence establishments-If could form trade unions. | On the question whether civilian employees of Defence Establishments have the right to form trade unions under Art, 19(1) (c) of the Constitution, ^ HELD: Article 33 of the Constitution provides an exception to the Preceding Ar | http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs.aspx |
| 7 | R. VISWAN & OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS | Coram: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ), BHAGWATI, P.N., REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J), ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J), MISRA, R.B. (J) | 06/05/1983 | Army Act, 1950-S. 21-Constitutional validity of-Whether saved by Art. 33. Army Act, 1950-Sub-ss. (1) and (4) of s. 4-'Force'- Meaning of. General Reserve Engineering Force. (GREF)-Whether it is 'force' within the meaning of sub-ss. | The petitioners who belonged to the General Reserve Engineering Force (GREF) were charged under s. 63 of the Army Act, 1950 on allegations inter alia that they had assembled in front of the Chief Engineer and shouted slogans demandi | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 8 | CHIEF OF THE ARMY STAFF AND OTHERS Vs. MAJOR DHARAM PAL KUKRETY | Coram: MADON, D.P. | 21/03/1985 | Constitution of India Article 226-Maintainability of writ petition at the stage of show cause notice to terminate the services of a service personnel by the Chief of the Army staff when the finding of a court martial even on revision is per | The respondent, a permanent commissioned officer of the Indian Army holding the substantive rank of captain and the acting rank of major, as a result of certain incidents which are alleged to have taken place on November 5 and 6, 1975 was or | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 9 | SUPDT. & REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, WEST BENGAL Vs. USHA RANJAN ROY CHOUDHURY & ANR. | Coram: THAKKAR, M.P. (J) | 21/05/1986 | Criminal Courts and Court Martial (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1952, Rules 3 and 4-Offences falling within purview of section 52 of Army Act, 1950-Trial by Magistrate-Procedure to be followed-'Special Judge', whether deemed to | The three respondents-accused were charged with offences which fell within the scope of section 52 of the Army Act of 1950. The ordinary criminal court and the Court Martial both had concurrent jurisdiction to try the said offences. T | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 10 | UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MAJOR GENERALH.C. PATHAK Vs. MAJOR S.K. SHARMA | Coram: PATHAK, R.S. (CJ) | 29/06/1987 | Criminal Procedure Code, 1973--S. 475--Read with ss. 200 to 204 of the Code, and the provisions of the Army Act, 1950 and the Army Rules--When a Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence committed by a member of the Armed Forces and therea | An officer in the Army filed a complaint before a Magis- trate alleging that another officer has assaulted him, that the Commanding Officer to whom he had complained earlier had failed to take satisfactory action and thus both of them had committ | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 11 | VIDYA PRAKASH Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. | Coram: RAY, B.C. (J) | 10/02/1988 | Army Act, 1950/Army Rules, 1954: Sections 39(a), 71(e), 108 and 116/Rule 39(2)-Jawan-Absent without leave-Charge sheeted-Trial by Summary Court Martial-Held guilty-Dismissed from service-In writ petition assailing constitution of summary | % The appellant was appointed to the post of Craftsman (Jawan) on November 23, 1973. He was later promoted to the post of Naik in view of his good services and subsequently confirmed in that post. He served at various places in the coun | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 12 | LT. COL. K.D. GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS | Coram: MISRA RANGNATH | 20/04/1988 | Army Act, 1950: Section 20, 191 and 192 and Special Army Instruction No. 1 dated January 9, 1974 Army Officer- Subjected to frequent medical examination-Downgrading and upgrading between shape-I and shape-III-Treated to have been reduced i | The appellant was granted a permanent Commission in the Indian Army in 1958 and appointed as a Second Lieutenant. He rose to the level of Lt. Colonel on 27th February, 1975. In March, 1976 he was directed to report to the Military Hospit | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 13 | LT. COLONEL K.D. GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. | Coram: MISRA RANGNATH | 31/03/1989 | Army Act, 1964: Defence Services--Promotion--Unlike other government servants, requisite experience, consequent expo- sure and appropriate review by authorities, indispens- able--Individual capacity and special qualities--Basis for assessm | The appellant has filed a contempt petition against the Respondents, alleging that the directions dated 20.4.1988 of this Court, have not been complied with. The Respondents were directed to reconsider the case of the appellant for promoti | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 14 | UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs. NAIK SUBEDAR CLK(S) BALESHWAR RAM AND ORS. | Coram: MISRA RANGNATH | 27/10/1989 | Army Act, 1950: Sections 52, 63. Army Rules 1954: Rule 22. Dismissal pursuant to General Court Martial--Validity of. Non-compliance with Rule--Effect of. | The respondents faced trial for the charge of theft. After a General Court Martial, they were found guilty, convicted and sentenced. All the three respondents were dismissed from service. The respondents filed a writ petition in t | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
| 15 | S.N. MUKHERJEE Vs. UNION OF INDIA | Coram: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (CJ), KANIA, M.H., SHETTY, K.J. (J), SAIKIA, K.N. (J), AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) | 28/08/1990 | Army Act 1950: Section 164--Court-Martial--Post confir- mation petition--Central Government--Whether bound to give reasons. | The Appellant was officiating as a Major though he held a substantive rank of Captain as a permanent Commissioned Officer of the army when on December 27, 1974 he took over as the Officer Commanding 38 Coy. A.S.C. (Sup) Type 'A' attached | Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement |
No comments:
Post a Comment