Form No. 4 [See rule 11(1)] ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES ...aftlko.up.nic.in/C3 Daily Order/c3- 24.11 to 28.11.14.pdf · [See rule 11(1)] ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH,

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW

Court No. 3

DY.- No. 1116 of 2014 with EXA. 104 of 2013

Mithilesh Kumar Singh Applicant

By Legal Practitioner for Applicant

Versus

Chief of Army Staff & Others Respondents

By Legal Practitioner for Respondents

Notes of the Registry Orders of the Tribunal

28.11.2014

One Hon’ble Member of the Bench i.e.

Hon’ble Lt Gen A.M. Verma, Member (A) is on

leave; hence put up on 01.12.2014.

I/C Registrar

rpm/-

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A.- No. 1701 of 2014 with M.A. No. 1702 of 2014

(Inre: O.A. No. 392 of 2012)

Union of India & Others Applicants


Versus

Mahendra Pratap Singh Respondent



28.11.2014




I/C Registrar

rpm/-

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 1703 of 2014 with M.A. 1704 of 2014

(Inre: O.A. No. 172 of 2012)

Union of India & Others Applicants


Versus

Lokendra Singh Respondent



28.11.2014




I/C Registrar

rpm/-

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 206 of 2013 with M.A. No. 357 of 2014

Suresh Kumar Pal Applicant


Versus




28.11.2014




I/C Registrar

rpm/-

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 161 of 2014

Sgt Sandeep Singh Kushwaha Applicant


Versus

Union of India & Others Respondents



28.11.2014




I/C Registrar

rpm/-

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 727 of 2010

Jaswant Singh Applicant


Versus




28.11.2014




I/C Registrar

rpm/-

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 89 of 2012

Pirtu Lakra Applicant


Versus




28.11.2014




I/C Registrar

rpm/-

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 1513 of 2014

(Inre: T.A. No. 58 of 2013)

P Raghavan Applicant


Versus




27.11.2014


Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abdul Mateen, Member (J) is

on leave; hence put up on 09.01.2015.

I/C Registrar

rpm/-

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 1680 of 2014 with M.A. No. 1064 of 20134

Nil Kant Gain Applicant


Versus




27.11.2014




I/C Registrar

rpm/-

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 83 of 2014 with M.A. No. 1122 of 2014, M.A. No. 1123 of 2014,

M.A. 1342 of 2014 & M.A. No. 1343 of 2014

(Inre : O.A. No. 243 of 2011)

Sgt Kesho Dubey Applicant


Versus

Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha & Others Respondents



27.11.2014




I/C Registrar

rpm/-

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 400 of 2014 with M.A. No. 1334 of 2014 & M.A. No. 1339 of 2014,

(Inre : O.A. No. 334 of 2011)

RD Sharma Applicant


Versus

Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha & Others Respondents



27.11.2014




I/C Registrar

rpm/-

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 82 of 2014

Yogesh Kumar Applicant


Versus




27.11.2014




I/C Registrar

rpm/-

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

EX-A. No. 04 of 2014

(Inre: O.A. No. 34 of 2013)

Ram Chandra Tiwari Applicant

In person

Versus



Notes of the

Registry

Orders of the Tribunal

26.11.2014

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abdul Mateen, Member (J)

Hon’ble Lt. Gen. A.M. Verma, Member (A)

Present: The applicant in person, and Mrs. Veera Bahadur

Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents, along with Capt. Priti

Tyagi, Departmental Representative.

On call of the case learned counsel for the respondents

produced a copy of the order dated 21.11.2014 passed by the Chief of

the Army Staff under Section 164(2) of the Army Act, 1950 on the

petition dated 8.2.2012 of the applicant after serving a copy of the

same on the applicant, who is appearing in person. The same is taken

on record.

The applicant, who is appearing in person, after receiving the

aforesaid copy of the order from Mrs. Veera Bahadur Srivastava,

learned counsel for the respondents, states that since his petition has

been disposed of, as above, and the judgment and order dated

19.9.2013, passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 34 of 2013, has been

complied with, this Execution Application be disposed of as

infructuous.

Accordingly, this Execution Application No. 02 of 2014 is

dismissed as infructuous.

(Lt. Gen A.M. Verma) (Justice Abdul Mateen)

Member (A) Member (J)

PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 896 of 2014 with M.A. No. 897 of 2014

(Inre: T.A. No 364 of 2010)

Hari Baboo Nishad Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


26.11.2014



Present: Shri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

applicant, and Shri D.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents,

along with Capt. Priti Tyagi, Departmental Representative.

This petition has come on transfer from the Allahabad High

Court and renumbered as T.A. No. 364 of 2010.

We find that this petition/T.A. has been admitted by the

Allahabad High Court on 21.2.2007.

In this case counter and rejoinder affidavits have been

exchanged and the matter is ripe for hearing.

Accordingly, list this case for hearing on its turn, i.e. on

10.2.2015, before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction, as per

roster.

When the case is next listed, the name of Shri D.K. Pandey be

shown as learned counsel for the respondents.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 124 of 2014

Prem Singh Negi Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


26.11.2014



Present: Shri R. Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant, and

Mrs. Veera Bahadur Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents,


On call of the case, learned counsel for the respondents states

that counter affidavit is ready and will be filed before the Registry

during the course of the day after serving a copy of the same on

learned counsel for the applicant. If the counter affidavit is filed, the

applicant may file rejoinder affidavit within two weeks.

List on 2.2.2015 before the appropriate Court having

jurisdiction, as per roster.

On the next date learned counsel for the respondents will

satisfy this Court as to whether after summary trial the O.A. is

maintainable under Section 15 of the A.F.T. Act, 2007 or not.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 175 of 2014

Lt Col Harshwardhan Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


26.11.2014



Present: Shri Alok Mathur holding brief of Shri R.K. Verma,

learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri Mukund Tewari, learned

counsel for the respondents, along with Capt. Priti Tyagi,

Departmental Representative.

From the order-sheets we find that this O.A. has been admitted

by this Tribunal on 29.8.2014. However, while going through the O.A.

we noticed that are serious allegations levelled by the applicant against

respondent no. 4 regarding adverse entries made by him on the C.R. of

the applicant pertaining to the period from 7.12.2004 to 31.5.2005 and

from 1.6.2005 to 31.5.2006, since respondent no. 4 was the

Commanding Officer of the applicant. It requires reply from

respondent no. 4. As such, we find it just and proper that notice should

be issued to respondent no. 4.

Accordingly, issue notice to respondent no. 4 to file counter

affidavit within three weeks from the date of service of notice.

Learned counsel for the applicant will take steps within three days.

Learned counsel for the respondents, as prayed, may file

counter affidavit in the meantime.

We also find from the order-sheet dated 11.11.2014 that the

respondents were directed to produce original record of the applicant

including his ACR before this Court, but the respondents failed to

produce the same.

Learned Standing Counsel is again directed to ensure

production of the original record of the applicant including his ACR

before this Court on the next date.





PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 339 of 2010

Krishan Pal Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


26.11.2014



Present: Shri Rohit Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant,

and Shri D.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents, along with

Capt. Priti Tyagi, Departmental Representative.

From the order-sheets we find that this case has not yet been

admitted, though it has been listed for hearing.

As prayed by Shri Rohit Kumar, list this case on 1.12.2014 for

admission before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction, as per

roster.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 38 of 2012

Subhash Chandra Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


26.11.2014



Present: Shri Prakhar Kankan, learned counsel for the

respondents, along with Capt. Priti Tyagi, Departmental

Representative.

On call of the case Shri Raj Kumar Singh, Advocate, appeared

and stated that Shri Yashpal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant,

is busy in High Court. He, therefore, prays that the case be adjourned.

Accordingly, the case is adjourned for the day.

However, on going through the file and the order-sheets

therein, we find that this T.A. has not yet been admitted.

Office is directed to list the case on 15.1.2015 for admission

before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction, as per roster.



PG.

Form No. 4 [See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 679 of 2014 with T.A. No. 1053 of 2010

Pitambar Datt Nainwal Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


26.11.2014



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Mukund Tewari for

respondents is taken on record. When the case is next listed his name

be shown as counsel for the said respondents.

Present: Shri S.K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, and

Shri Mukund Tewari, learned counsel for the respondents, along with


List has been revised. Learned Counsel for the applicant states

that he will be filling receipt of deposition of cost Rs. 1000/- in

Registry in course of the day.

Accordingly, list this case for admission on 16.12.2014 before

the appropriate Court having jurisdiction, as per roster.



rpm.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 542 of 2010

Bhagwat Prasad Mishra Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


26.11.2014



Present: Capt. PritiTyagi, Departmental Representative.

List has been revised, Shri. P. N. Chaturvedi, learned counsel

for the applicant is not present. A person claiming himself Shri

Bhagwat Prasad Mishra, applicant is present and states that his

counsel Shri P.N. Chaturvedi is arguing a case in some other court and

requested for adjournment of the case.

As prayed, list this case on 11.02.2015 for admission before the

appropriate Court having jurisdiction, as per roster.



rpm.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 65 of 2010

Ganesh Babu KV Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


26.11.2014



Present: Shri Mukund Tewari, learned counsel for the

respondents, and Capt. PritiTyagi, Departmental Representative.

List has been revised, Shri. P. N. Chaturvedi, learned counsel

for the applicant is not present. A person claiming himself Shri

Ganesh Babu K.V., applicant is present and states that his counsel

Shri P.N. Chaturvedi is arguing a case in some other court and

requested for adjournment of the case.

As prayed, list this case on 12.02.2015 for hearing before the

appropriate Court having jurisdiction, as per roster.



rpm.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 278 of 2012

Hemendra Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


26.11.2014



Present: Capt. Priti Tyagi, Departmental Representative.

List has been revised. No one appears for the applicant, neither

there is any request to adjourn/pass over the case.

Accordingly, O.A. No. 278 of 2012 is dismissed for non-

prosecution.



rpm.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 119 of 2010

Ravindra Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


26.11.2014



Present: Shri R. Chandra, and Capt. Priti Tyagi, Departmental

Representative.

List has been revised, Shri R. Chandra, learned counsel for the

applicant states that he is not prepared with the brief and requested for

adjournment. As such, the case is adjourned for the day.

List on 12.01.2015 for hearing before the appropriate Court

having jurisdiction, as per roster.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 531 of 2010

Sultan Ram Applicant


Versus

Secy GOI & Others Respondents


Notes of the

Registry


26.11.2014



List has been revised. Shri P.N. Chaturvedi, learned counsel

for the applicant, Shri D.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the

respondents and Capt. Priti Tyagi, Departmental Representative are

present.

This case has been received on transfer from the High Court of

Judicature at Allahabad and renumbered as Transferred Application

no. 531 of 2010.

We have gone through the records and order sheets of this

petition and it comes out that the petition has not yet been admitted.

Accordingly, list this case on 13.02.2015 for admission before

the appropriate Court having jurisdiction, as per roster.



rpm.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 1604 of 2014

(Inre: O.A. No. 59 of 2013)

Jitendra Pratap Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2014



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Rajesh Kumar on behalf of

respondents no. 1 to 4 is taken on record. When the case is next listed his

name be shown as counsel for the said respondents.

Present: Shri Pradeep Chandola, learned counsel for the applicant,

and Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, along with


This Misc. Application No. 1604 of 2014 has been filed by the

applicant for recall of the order dated 29.10.2014, passed by this Court,

dismissing O.A. No. 59 of 2013 for non-prosecution.

We have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the recall

application. The reasons shown in the affidavit seems to be genuine.

Accordingly, the order dated 29.10.2014, dismissing the O.A. No. 59 of

2013 for non-prosecution, is hereby recalled and the O.A. is restored to its

original number, provided the applicant deposits a sum of Rs. 500/- to the

AFT Bar Association within a period of ten days.

List on 2.2.2015 before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction, as

per roster.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 1661 of 2014 with M.A. No.1662 of 2014

(Inre: T.A. No. 123 of 2011)

Lt Col Rohit Mittal Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2014



Present: Shri Rakesh Johri, learned counsel for the applicant,

and Shri D.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents, along with

Col. G.J. Manhas & Capt. Priti Tyagi, Departmental Representative.

On call of the case Shri Rakesh Johri stated that this case will

be argued by Shri Rajiv Manglik and Shri Manglik is busy in another

Court. Shri Johri, therefore, prays that this case be adjourned for the

day and be listed on 9.12.2014 since this Court on 8.10.2014 has

ordered for listing of this case on 9.12.2014. Col. G.J. Manhas has no

objection about listing of this case on 9.12.2014.

Accordingly, list this case on 9.12.2014 before the appropriate

Court having jurisdiction, as per roster. When the case is next listed,

the name of Shri Dinesh Kumar Pandey be shown as counsel for the

respondents, and the names of Shri Rajiv Manglik & Shri Rakesh

Johri be shown as counsel for the applicant.



PG.


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 1663 of 2014

(Inre: O.A. No. 192 of 2014)

Brijesh Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2014



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Dileep Singh on behalf of respondents

no. 1 to 4 is taken on record. When the case is next listed his name be shown as

counsel for the said respondents.

Present: Shri R.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri Dileep

Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, along with Capt. Priti Tyagi,


Misc. Application No. 1663 of 2014 has been filed by the applicant for

setting aside the order dated 11.11.2014, dismissing O.A.(A) No. 192 of 2014 for

non-prosecution.

We have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the aforesaid

application. The reasons shown in the affidavit seems to be genuine. Accordingly,

Misc. Application No. 1663 of 2014 is allowed and the order dated 11.11.2014 is

hereby recalled, provided the applicant deposits a sum of Rs. 300/- to the AFT Bar

Association within a period of ten days from today. If the amount of Rs. 300/- is

deposited within the aforesaid period, the O.A.(A) be restored to its original

number.

List on 4,2,2015 before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction, as per

roster.



PG.


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 1664 of 2014 with M.A. No.1665 of 2014

(Inre: O.A. No. 165 of 2013)

Parikram Jit Singh &Another Applicants

By Legal Practitioner for Applicants

Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2014



Present: Shri Parijaat Belaura, learned counsel for the applicant, and


In this case two applications have been filed. Misc. Application No.

1664 of 2014 has been moved by the applicant for condoning the delay in

filing Misc. Application No. 1665 of 2014 for recall of the order dated

3.9.3014, dismissing O.A. No. 165 of 2013 for non-prosecution.

We have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the recall

application. The reasons shown in the affidavit seems to be genuine.

Accordingly, the order dated 3.9.3014, dismissing the O.A. No. 165 of 2013

for non-prosecution, is hereby recalled and the O.A. is restored to its

original number, provided the applicant deposits a sum of Rs. 500/- to the

AFT Bar Association within a period of two weeks.

Both the aforesaid applications, therefore, stands disposed of.


per roster.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 1668 of 2014

(Inre: T.A. No. 1148 of 2010)

Manoj Kumar Pandey Applicant

In Person

Versus

GOC, UB Area Respondent

By Legal Practitioner for Respondent

Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2014



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Dinesh Kumar Pandey on

behalf of respondents no. 1 to 5 is taken on record.

Present: Shri Dinesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the


Representative.

List has been revised. The applicant, who is appearing in

person in this case as he is unable to engage a counsel due to paucity

of funds, as mentioned in paragraph 7(a) of the application for Leave

to Appeal, is not present, neither there is any request in writing or

mentioned orally on his behalf to adjourn/pass over the case.

Accordingly, Misc. Application No. 1668 of 2014 is dismissed

for non-prosecution.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

EX.-A. No. 1 of 2014 with M.A. No. 1508 of 2014

(Inre: T.A. No. 858 of 2010)

MadhukarKalu Jadhav Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2014




Ms. Deepti Prasad Bajpai, learned counsel for the respondents, along

with Capt. Priti Tyagi, Departmental Representative.

Learned counsel for the respondents states that she received

detailed instruction with respect to compliance of the judgment and

order dated 17.7.2013, passed by this Tribunal in T.A. No. 858 of

2010. She, therefore, prays for and is granted ten days’ time to bring

the same on record by means of an affidavit.





PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 141 of 2012

Rajneesh Tripathi Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2014



Present: Shri Nishant Verma, learned counsel for the applicant,

and Capt. Priti Tyagi, Departmental Representative.

On call of the case Capt. Priti Tyagi, Departmental

Representative, prays for and is granted, as a matter of last

opportunity, four weeks’ further time to file counter affidavit.

Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.





PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 183 of 2014

Tuphan Kumar Applicant


Versus

Chief of Air Staff& Others Respondents


Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2014



Case called out. No one appeared from either sides.

On call of the case it has been pointed out by the Bench

Secretary that an adjournment application has been moved by Shri

Rohit Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant. Accordingly, this case

is adjourned for the day.





PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A.(A). No. 99 of 2014 with M.A. No. 1649 of 2014

Hav Mahadev Rao Talagapu Applicant


Versus

Union of India& Others Respondents


Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2014



Present: Shri Vinay Pandey holding brief of Shri P.N.

Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Capt. Priti Tyagi,


Misc. Application No. 1649 of 2014.

This is an application for taking counter affidavit on record. Let

the counter affidavit be taken on record. This application, accordingly,

stands disposed of.

Shri Vinay Pandey prays for and is granted three weeks’ time to

file rejoinder affidavit.





PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 18 of 2014

RP Vishwakarma Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2014



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Dinesh Kumar Pandey on

behalf of the respondents be taken on record. When the case is next

listed, his name be shown as counsel for the respondents.


Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, along with


This case has been received on transfer from the High Court of

Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur and renumbered as T.A. No. 18 of 2014.

Shri Pandey states that after transfer of this case he has not

received the brief from the Standing Counsel at Jabalpur and he could

not even reconstruct the same as yet. Shri Pandey, therefore, prays for

and is granted four weeks’ time to reconstruct his file.





PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A.(A). No. 97 of 2014

Vikram Singh Tomar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2014



Present: Capt. PritiTyagi, Departmental Representative.



Accordingly, O.A.(A) No. 97 of 2014 is dismissed for non-

prosecution.



PG.


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 752 of 2010

Samrath Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2014



Present: Shri V.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, and

Shri Dileep Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, along with Col. G.J.

Manhas & Capt. Priti Tyagi, Departmental Representative.

From perusal of the file it comes out that the applicant has been

convicted in GCM proceedings.

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that earlier an

F.I.R. was lodged being case Crime No. 360 of 1994 under Section 411

I.P.C. and Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, P.S. Civil Lines,

Hissar (Haryana) against one Chiman Lal and one Dal Singh. They were

thereafter tried with respect to recovery of 8 barrel of Mobil Oil and 4 barrel

of Grease, said to have been stolen from the stock of the Army at Hissar

Cantt. After the charge-sheet both the aforesaid accused were tried in the

court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Hissar in

Sessions Case No. 37 of 1995 and the learned Special Judge acquitted both

the aforesaid accused of the charge, vide judgment and order dated

20.3.1997.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the while acquitting

both the aforesaid accused the learned Special Judge observed specifically

that since the prosecution failed to prove that the Mobil Oil and Grease

recovered from the possession of the aforesaid two accused are stolen

property, the charge under Section 411 I.P.C. cannot be made out. He

further submits that without there being any FIR against the applicant by the

Army that certain quantity of Mobil Oil and Grease had been stolen from the

Depot of the Army, the applicant has been roped in and convicted by GCM

without there being any evidence to that effect. On being asked, learned

counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was engaged in

maintaining the account of Fuel Oil & Lubricant (FOL) but since both the

aforesaid accused, viz. Chiman Lal and Dal Singh, were acquitted by the

learned Special Judge, the applicant has been roped in falsely without there

being any existence of material so as to indicate that Mobil Oil and Grease,

found in possession of Chiman Lal and Dal Singh, was ever taken out from

FOL Depot, Hissar. Apart from the above, it has been submitted that right

from July, 1994 till the trial proceeded, i.e. upto the date of acquittal, viz.

20.3.1997, inspite of sufficient opportunity having been afforded to the

Army, at no point of time the Army at Hissar Cantt. had ever taken the plea

or put forward any evidence that Mobil Oil and Grease were taken out from

the Stores/Stock of the Army from Hissar Cantt. Thus, initiation of GCM

proceedings itself, on the face of it, shown ulterior motive and mala fide

intention on the part of the respondents.

There seems to be some substance in the argument of learned

counsel for the applicant.

Since original record is not available with learned counsel for the

respondents today pertaining to GCM proceedings, the respondents are

directed to produce the original record pertaining to GCM proceedings

before the Court on the next date.

List on 22.12.2014 before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction,

as per roster.



PG.


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 01 of 2014

Sarbeswar Pattanaik Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


25.11.2014



Present: Shri V.K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri

Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, along with Capt. Priti

Tyagi, Departmental Representative.

This case has come on transfer from the High Court of Uttaranchal at

Nainital and has been registered before this Tribunal as T.A. No. 01 of 2014.

The matter relates to DCM proceedings. Counter and rejoinder affidavits

have been exchanged in this case.

However, Shri Rajesh Kumar submits that after transfer of this case

from the High Court at Nainital he has not received the brief from the

Standing Counsel at Nainital though he wrote twice to sending the file, but

of no avail. Shri Rajesh Kumar, therefore, prays and is granted four weeks’

time and no more to reconstruct the file.

List this case on 6.2.2015 before the appropriate Court having

jurisdiction, as per roster. On the said date it is expected that the original

record of DCM proceedings be made available by the respondents for

perusal of the Court.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

DY-No. 2115 of 2014

Nb Sub Om Prakash Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


24.11.2014



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Mukund Tewari on behalf of

respondents no. 1 to 5 is taken on record. When the case is next listed,

his name be shown as counsel for the said respondents.

Present: Shri P.N. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant,

and Shri Mukund Tewari, learned counsel for the respondents, along


On the request of Shri P.N. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the

applicant, list this case on 8.12.2014 before the appropriate Court




PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 1591 of 2014

Prakash Rai Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


24.11.2014



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava on

behalf of respondents no. 1 to 5 are taken on record. When the case is next

listed, his name be shown as counsel for the said respondents.

Present: Major R.D. Singh (Retd.), learned counsel for the applicant,

and Shri Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents,


This Misc. Application No. 1591 of 2014 has been filed by the

applicant for condoning the delay in filing the Original Application, which

has been preferred by the applicant against the punishment awarded to him

in SCM proceedings.

As per office report, there is delay of 8 years, 5 months and 22 days

in filing the Original Application.

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted six

weeks’ time to file objection on the delay condonation application.


per roster.



PG.


ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

EX-A. No. 44 of 2014

(Inre:O.A. (A). No. 07 of 2013

Mukesh Kumar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


24.11.2014



Memo of appearance filed by Shri Mukund Tewari on behalf of

respondents no. 1 to 4 is taken on record. When the case is next listed, his

name be shown as counsel for the said respondents.

Present: Shri Mukund Tewari, learned counsel for the respondents,


On call of the case in the revised list, Shri Shailendra Kumar Singh,

Advocate, appeared and stated that some mis-happening has occurred in the

family of Shri Ashish Asthana, learned counsel for the applicant, as such he

could not come to this Court today. Shri Singh, therefore, prays for

adjournment of the case. Accordingly, the case is adjourned for the day.

List on 19.12.2014 before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction,

as per roster.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 1655 of 2014

(Inre: O.A. No. 138 of 2011)

VK Rai Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


24.11.2014



Present: Shri P.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, and


Heard Shri P.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, on

this Misc. Application No. 1655 of 2014, moved by the applicant for

recall of the order dated 3.11.2014, dismissing O.A. No. 138 of 2011

for non-prosecution.

The reasons shown in the affidavit accompanying M.A. No.

1655 of 2014 seems to be genuine. Accordingly, M.A. No. 1655 of

2014 is allowed, the order dated 3.11.2014 is hereby recalled and the

O.A. is restored to its original number, provided the applicant deposits

Rs. 500/- as cost in the A.F.T. Bar Association within ten days.

List on 3.2.2015 for admission before the appropriate Court




PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

M.A. No. 885 of 2014 with M.A. No 886 of 2014

(Inre: O.A. No. 19 of 2010)

Anil Kumar (POEL) Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


24.11.2014






Accordingly, M.A. No. 885 of 2014 with M.A. No. 886 of 2014

and O.A. No. 19 of 2010 are dismissed for non-prosecution.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A.(A). No. 216 of 2013

Awadesh Kumar Chaubey Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


24.11.2014






Accordingly, O.A.(A) No. 216 of 2013 is dismissed for non-

prosecution.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 163 of 2009 with M.A. No. 1340 of 2014

RV Prasad Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


24.11.2014



Present: Shri D.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents,




Accordingly, T.A. No. 163 of 2009 along with M.A. No. 1340

of 2014 are dismissed for non-prosecution.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 09 of 2010

Surya Mani Mishra Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


24.11.2014



Present: Shri V.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, and

Sgt. Subhendu Dutta, Departmental Representative.

On call of the case Shri V.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the

applicant, prays for adjournment of the case since he is not prepared

with the brief. Accordingly, the case is adjourned for the day.



The respondents are directed that the original record, which has

been brought to day, be again made available for perusal of this Court

on the next date.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

O.A. No. 298 of 2013

Ram Das Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


24.11.2014



Present: Shri O.P. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant,

and Shri Prakhar Kankan, learned counsel for the respondents, along


Learned counsel for the applicant states that he is not prepared

with the brief. He, therefore, prays for adjournment of the case.

Accordingly, the case is adjourned for the day.





PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 211 of 2009

Liladhar Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


24.11.2014



Present: Shri Mukund Tewari, learned counsel for the


Representative.

On call of the case Shri P.K. Shukla, Advocate, appeared and

stated that Shri Yashpal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, could

not come to this Court today since he is busy with some other case

filed by him before the Lucknow Bench of the High Court. Shri

Shukla, therefore, prays for adjournment of the case. Learned Standing

Counsel has no objection. Accordingly, the case is adjourned for the

day.

List on 10.2.2015 before the appropriate Court, having

jurisdiction as per roster, for admission, if not already admitted.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 1036 of 2010

Jasawant Singh Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


24.11.2014



Present: Mrs. Veera Bahadur Srivastava, learned counsel for the


Representative.

On call of the case in the revised list Shri Srikant Mishra,

Advocate, appeared and stated that Shri Amar Nath Tiwari, learned

counsel for the applicant, has not come to this Court today. He,

therefore, prays for adjournment of the case. Accordingly, the case is

adjourned for the day.

List on 16.1.2015 before the appropriate Court, having

jurisdiction as per roster, for admission since after going through the

order-sheets, we find that this Transferred Application has not yet

been admitted, but in the Cause List this case has been listed for

hearing. Office is directed to be careful in future and list the cases

accordingly.



PG.

Form No. 4

[See rule 11(1)]

ORDER SHEET


Court No. 3

T.A. No. 06 of 2010

CM Bhatt Applicant


Versus



Notes of the

Registry


24.11.2014



Present: Shri P.N. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant,

and Capt. PritiTyagi, Departmental Representative.

This case is listed in the Supplementary Cause List. Shri P.N.

Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant states that he is not

prepared with the brief. He, therefore, prays for adjournment of the

case. Accordingly the case is adjourned for the day.

We have also gone through the order sheets of the case and we

find that this case has not yet been admitted.

List for admission on 09.12.2014 before the appropriate Court




rpm.

Documents

Form No. 4 [See rule 11(1)] ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES ...aftlko.up.nic.in/C3 Daily Order/c3- 24.11 to 28.11.14.pdf · [See rule 11(1)] ORDER SHEET ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH,