Relief when not be extended to third parties

BSNL v. Ghanshyam Dass (2), (2011) 4 SCC 374 at page 382

 

25. The principle laid down in K.I. Shephard [(1987) 4 SCC 431 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 438] that it is not necessary for every person to approach the court for relief and it is the duty of the authority to extend the benefit of a concluded decision in all similar cases without driving every affected person to court to seek relief would apply only in the following circumstances:

(a) where the order is made in a petition filed in a representative capacity on behalf of all similarly situated employees;

(b) where the relief granted by the court is a declaratory relief which is intended to apply to all employees in a particular category, irrespective of whether they are parties to the litigation or not;

(c) where an order or rule of general application to employees is quashed without any condition or reservation that the relief is restricted to the petitioners before the court; and

(d) where the court expressly directs that the relief granted should be extended to those who have not approached the court.

 

26. On the other hand, where only the affected parties approach the court and relief is given to those parties, the fence-sitters who did not approach the court cannot claim that such relief should have been extended to them thereby upsetting or interfering with the rights which had accrued to others.

 

Jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunals

Ramesh Gobindram v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, (2010) 8 SCC 726 at page 738

34. The crucial question that shall have to be answered in every case where a plea regarding exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court is raised is whether the Tribunal is under the Act or the Rules required to deal with the matter sought to be brought before a civil court. If it is not, the jurisdiction of the civil court is not excluded. But if the Tribunal is required to decide the matter the jurisdiction of the civil court would stand excluded

 

 

 

Delay in payment of compensation: consequences

(1994) 1 SCC 44

Despite voluntary disclosure of income penalty can be levied

http://www.supremelaw.in/2013/10/mak-data-p-ltd-vs-commissioner-of.html

Buyer of a piece of land after section 4 notification does so at his own peril

http://www.supremelaw.in/2013/12/kn-aswathnarayana-setty-d-tr-lrs-ors-vs.html

Anticipatory bail not to be given to absconder

http://www.supremelaw.in/2013/12/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-pradeep.html


Sent through Android app for RSS Feed reading available by:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.news.rssfeedreader

Co-promisor alone can sue for specific performance

AIR 1937 Nag 186

(2009) 3 SCC 141