Q: Write about the citation of M. Prakash V. Director General, 18.01.2019 ?

Ans: 

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT                                               DATED: 18.01.2019                                                   

 CORAM:    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN                                             WP(MD)No.1175 of 2009                                                    and                                              MP(MD)No.1 of 2009                   

 M.Prakash  ... Petitioner                                                       

 Vs                     

1.The Director General,                        Border Security Force,                       (Disc & Lit.Branch),                        Second Floor, Block No.10,                        CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 3.                   

 2.The Deputy Inspector General,                     

  SHQ, BSF, Gokhul Nagar.         

  3.The Commandant,                      

 59, Battalion, Border Security Force,                        Fatikchera, Tripura.   ......Respondent

A dismissal order was issued on March 1, 2008 by the commandant and the appeal on the dismissal order was also rejected by the director general of BSF. Subsequently, Prakash moved to the Madurai bench of the Madras high court to set aside the dismissal order.

A Border Security Force (BSF) constable from Madurai who was dismissed from service in 2008 on charges of improperly allowing crossing over of fish headloads from Bangladesh to India, while serving in the border in Tripura has been directed to be reinstated into service by the Madurai bench of the Madras high court.

x

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Q: Describe the citation of Chandra Kumar v. Union of India in brief ?

Ans: The larger issue before the Bench was whether the orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal set up under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 would be amenable to challenge before High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It will be noted that when the concept of tribunalisation was upheld in L Chandra Kumar v. Union of India  that the Court had unequivocally opined that the orders passed by the Tribunals would be subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of Indian Constitution.  x
Read more

Q: Discuss Section 33 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ?

Ans: Section 33 of Arbitration and Conciliation act mentions about Correction and interpretation of award:  (1) Section 33(1) mentions that within thirty days from the receipt of the arbitral award, unless another period of time has been agreed upon by the parties— (a) a party, with notice to the other party, may request the arbitral tribunal to correct any computation errors or any clerical or typographical errors or any other errors of a similar nature occurring in the award. (b) if so agreed by the parties, a party, with notice to the other party, may request the arbitral tribunal to give an interpretation of a specific point or part of the award if it is not understood by the party.  (2) If the arbitral tribunal considers the request made under sub-section (1) to be justified, it shall make the correction or give the interpretation within thirty days from the receipt of the request and the interpretation shall form part of the arbitral award. (3)...
Read more

Q: Elaborate the relevancy of citation of Union Of India vs Major R. Metri No. Mr 08585N on 4 April, 2022 in our case ?

Ans:  Union Of India vs Major R. Metri No. Mr 08585N on 4 April, 2022 The honourable Supreme Court held that the impugned judgment and order dated 2nd March, 2017, passed by the learned AFT, convicting the appellant Major R. Metri No.08585N for the offence punishable under Section 63 of the Army Act and sentencing him to forfeiture of seniority of rank and of severe reprimand is quashed and set aside. The appellantMajor R. Metri No.08585N is acquitted of all the charges, charged with. The appellantMajor R. Metri No.08585N is directed to be reinstated forthwith with continuity of service. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant Major R. Metri No.08585N will not be entitled for backwages for the period during which he was out of employment. Relevancy with our case: In the above case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Major R. Metri, the honourable Supreme Court set aside the dismissal of Major R. Metri considering the principles of natural justice and order f...
Read more