Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.29 seconds)

K.C. Sharma & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 July, 1997

(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 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 regularization and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India (supra). 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 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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 483 - Full Document

State Of U.P.& Ors vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors on 17 October, 2014

As per the Honble Supreme Court, [in Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Ors. (supra)] when the notification itself was struck down and it was a matter of pension, benefit thereof was to be given to the others also. The Court was of the view that the delay should have been condoned giving relief to the petitioners also in the same terms as was granted by the Full Bench of the Tribunal. The Honble Supreme Court after analysing the law, has culled out the following legal principles:
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 1005 - A K Sikri - Full Document
1