Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.25 seconds)
Documents citing Arjun Lal Makhija vs Government Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors. on 7 April, 2015

Mr.S.Ramakrishnan vs The Chief Executive Officer on 25 September, 2020

However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like. On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10 of 16 W.P.No.13463 of 2021 holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence."
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - D Krishnakumar - Full Document

Union Of India vs Https://Www.Mhc.Tn.Gov.In/Judis on 1 April, 2021

However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.27213 of 2021 etc batch rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim. (emphasis supplied). The proposition laid down in the aforesaid decisions squarely applies to the fact of the instant case.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - D Krishnakumar - Full Document

P.Tharabai vs The Union Of India on 2 February, 2024

However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim. (emphasis supplied). The proposition laid down in the aforesaid decisions squarely applies to the fact of the instant case.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - G K Ilanthiraiyan - Full Document
1