Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.28 seconds)Rameshwar Roy vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 December, 2016
Firstly in the
case of Rameshwar Rai (supra) the petitioner was facing punishment
which led to denial and secondly, the attention of the Division bench
was never invited to the position settled by this Court in the judgment
of Pramod Kumar & ors. at Annexure P-7 as affirmed by the
Division Bench in LPA No. 1260/2012 at Annexure P-8 and the
Supreme Court at Annexure P-8/1 as also the fact that that the State in
compliance of the judgment had proceeded to implement the
judgment.
K.C. Sharma & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 July, 1997
22.3 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.18433 of 2016 56
is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit
thereof to all similarly situated persons. Such a situation
can occur when the subject matter of the decision
touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of
regularization and the like (see K.C.Sharma v. Union of
India, reported in (1997)6 SCC 721). On the other hand,
if the judgment of the court was in personam 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 imp liedly 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."
Article 39 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1