Armed Forces Tribunal

Supreme Court mandates Invalidating Medical Board for discharge on medical grounds: Smt. Sulekha Rani vs. Union of India (2019) INSC 690 (16 July 2019)

/ Armed Forces Tribunal, Army Rules, 1954, Army Rules, 1954 with Rule 13, Army Rules, 1954 with Rule 14, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee, Judges

Supreme Court Rules Invalidating Medical Board Mandatory for Discharge on Medical Grounds Date of the Judgment: 16 July 2019 Citation: (2019) INSC 690 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Indira Banerjee, J. Can a member of the armed forces be discharged from service on medical grounds without an Invalidating Medical Board? The Supreme Court […]

Supreme Court mandates Invalidating Medical Board for discharge on medical grounds: Smt. Sulekha Rani vs. Union of India (2019) INSC 690 (16 July 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Grants Disability Pension Arrears to Soldier: Madan Prasad Sinha vs. Union of India (2019)

/ Armed Forces Tribunal, D.Y. Chandrachud, Disability Pension, Hemant Gupta, Judges, Pension Law, Service Law

Supreme Court Grants Disability Pension Arrears: Madan Prasad Sinha vs. Union of India (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a soldier is entitled to disability pension for a period when it was denied due to reassessment of disability percentage. CASE TYPE: Service Law – Armed Forces Tribunal Case Name: Madan Prasad Sinha @ Sanatan Baba vs. Union

Supreme Court Grants Disability Pension Arrears to Soldier: Madan Prasad Sinha vs. Union of India (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes ‘Severe Displeasure’ penalty and orders promotion for Army Officer: Union of India vs. Col. A.D. Nargolkar (2018)

/ A.K. Sikri, Armed Forces Tribunal, Ashok Bhushan, Court of Inquiry, Judges, Military Law, Military Law with Army Rule 180, Natural Justice, Procedural Fairness, Service Law

Supreme Court quashes ‘Severe Displeasure’ penalty and orders promotion for Army Officer: Union of India vs. Col. A.D. Nargolkar (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Court of Inquiry (COI) adhered to the principles of natural justice and Army Rule 180 while imposing a ‘Severe Displeasure (Recordable)’ penalty on an Army Officer. CASE TYPE: Armed Forces Tribunal

Supreme Court quashes ‘Severe Displeasure’ penalty and orders promotion for Army Officer: Union of India vs. Col. A.D. Nargolkar (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds AFT Decision on Promotion Board Marks: Union of India vs. Maj. Gen. Manomoy Ganguly (2017)

/ A.K. Sikri, Armed Forces Promotion, Armed Forces Tribunal, Ashok Bhushan, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Service Law, Service Law with Promotion Policy

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) was correct in interfering with the discretion of the Special Promotion Board (SPB) in awarding marks for promotion. CASE TYPE: Service Law – Armed Forces Promotion Case Name: Union of India and Others vs. Maj. Gen. Manomoy Ganguly, VSM Judgment Date: 10 November 2017 Can a promotion

Supreme Court Upholds AFT Decision on Promotion Board Marks: Union of India vs. Maj. Gen. Manomoy Ganguly (2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top