Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.18 seconds)State Of U.P.& Ors vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors on 17 October, 2014
15.During the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Others reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347 is held as follows:-
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 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). 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.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Apprentices Act, 1961
1