Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.25 seconds)Section 14 in The University Grants Commission Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Karnataka & Ors vs C. Lalitha on 31 January, 2006
16.1. It is to be noted here that in the case of C. Lalitha
(supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
State Of U.P.& Ors vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors on 17 October, 2014
16.2. And in the case Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra),
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
Signature Not Verified Digitally ... vs In Item Nos. 89, 100 & 101. Mr. Uday Bedi, ... on 16 March, 2023
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
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
regularisation and the like (see K.C.
Sharma v. Union of India [K.C. Sharma v. Union
of India, (1997) 6 SCC 721 : 1998 SCC (L&S)
226] ). 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.
Section 2 in The University Grants Commission Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Ramesh Goswami vs The State Of Assam And Ors on 23 February, 2017
(i) Ramesh Goswami v. State of Assam & Ors.,
reported in 2002 (3) GLT 377;
Smt. Anju Sharma vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 7 January, 2020
1