MAJOR DEEPAK BALI OF CHIEF v. UNION OF INDIA
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Army Act, 1950 s. 153
Judgment
Mr. Shankar Hedge with Mr. Shivanand Singbal, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Assistant Solicitor General for the Respondent No.1. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 16th August, 2007 P.C.:- Heard the learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. C. A. Ferreira, the learned Assistant Solicitor General on behalf of the Respondents. On behalf of the Respondents, a preliminary objection has been taken in that as the sentence imposed upon the Petitioner is yet to be confirmed as required under Section 153 of the Army Act, 1950, therefore the petition is premature. The learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition as and when the sentence is confirmed by the confirming authority in terms of Section 153 of the said Act. However, it is made clear that if the said sentence is confirmed the same shall not be executed for a period of four weeks from the date the order is communicated to the Petitioner. Petition disposed off on the above terms. RD. N. A. BRITTO, J.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Army Act, 1950 — s. 153.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 16 Aug 2007. The bench was N A BRITTO.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.