Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.34 seconds)Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Ravi Dutt And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 18 January, 2019
9. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the
orders passed by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA
No.3768/2018 decided on 06.01.2022 (Ravi Dutt Shankar & others vs.
Union of India & others), which has been filed along with MA
No.200/83/2022, wherein it has been held that the judgment of M.
Subramaniam (supra) is to be complied in rem and not to be treated as
in personam. The relevant pargraphs of the judgment are reproduced
below:
+ (3) W.P. (C) 7177/2019, C.M. Appl. ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 24 November, 2020
17. We also notice that the respondents are ignoring the fact
that apart from this Bench, other Benches of the Tribunal have
repeatedly directed compliance of the said judgment of M.
Subramaniam (supra) holding that the judgment is to be complied in
rem and not to be treated as in personam. We, therefore, hold that the
said judgment is not in personam and benefit of the same is required
to be extended to all similarly situated persons including the applicants
before us, to avoid needless litigation in future."
Suresh Chandra Sharma vs Union Of India on 26 August, 2016
- All India Association of Central Excise Gazetted Executive Officers
Association (Chennai Unit) v. Union of India & Ors. and Allahabad
Bench in OA No.536/2020 - Suresh Chander Sharma v. Union of India
held that the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in M.
Subramaniam (supra) is judgment in rem and passed orders to extend
the benefits of the judgments to the applicants therein.
M.V. Subramanyam And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 6 July, 2001
8. Thereafter, similar matter also came for consideration
before the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.
180/00161/2019 - A.S Peethambaran Vs. U.O.I & Ors and the
aforesaid OA was also allowed vide order dated 21.03.2022
following the judgment dated 06.09.2010 in WP (C) No. 13225/2010
of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of M.
Subramaniam Vs. Union of India & Ors. Although the aforesaid
order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Union of India in OP
(CAT) NO. 109 OF 2023 before Hon' High Court of Kerala, the
same was dismissed vide judgment dated 21.09.2023. Thereafter,
the Union of India filed SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)
Diary No(s).12304/2024 which was also dismissed on 13-05-2024.
Government Of Nct Of Delhi vs Somvir Rana (Tgt Eng) on 1 September, 2017
10. It is also to be noted here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
(SLP No.77457/2017) in the case of Government of NCT & Anr.
vs. Somvir Rana & Ors., has clearly observed that "once the
question, in principle, has been settled, it is only appropriate on the
part of the Government of India to issue a Circular so that it will
save the time of the court and the Administrative Departments, apart
from avoiding unnecessary and avoidable expenditure".
Bhoop Alleged Son Of Sheo vs Matadin Bhardwaj Son Of Lakmi Chand on 4 December, 1990
11. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhoop v. Matadin
Bhardwaj, (1991) 2 SCC 128 and Nirmal Chandra Bhattacharjee
v. Union of India, (1991) Supp. (2) SCC 363 have clearly held that
the mistake or delay on the part of the department should not be
permitted to recoil on the party.
Nirmal Chandra Bhattacharjee And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 September, 1990
11. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhoop v. Matadin
Bhardwaj, (1991) 2 SCC 128 and Nirmal Chandra Bhattacharjee
v. Union of India, (1991) Supp. (2) SCC 363 have clearly held that
the mistake or delay on the part of the department should not be
permitted to recoil on the party.