Danial Latiff Vs. Union of India
EmailAppeal: Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 5524/87.
(In W.P.No.868/86)
(In W.P.No.868/86)
Petitioner: Danial Latiff
Respondent: Union of India
Apeal: Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 5524/87.
(In W.P.No.868/86)
(In W.P.No.868/86)
Judges: SABYASACHI MUKHARJI & S.NATARAJAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 20, 1987
Appearances:
Mr. Danial Latiff, Sr. Advocate
(Petitioner in person)
(Petitioner in person)
Mr. K. Parasaran, Attorney General, Mr. M.K. Banerji, Solicitor General, Mrs. Sushma Suri, and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973:
Section 125 – Claim for maintenance – Persons whom the petitioner is professionally representing would not be prejudice in any way, if they postpone filing of applications under section 125.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the previous order made, there will be no further order in this application except to note that the claim if any, of the persons whom the petitioner is professionally representing would not be prejudice in any way, if they postpone filling of their applications under Sec. 125 of Cr. P.C. in view of pendency of this writ Petition. In this case it is necessary to observe that in view of the fact that interests of a large section of the society are affected, the Constitution Bench should hear the matter as expeditiously as possible.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the previous order made, there will be no further order in this application except to note that the claim if any, of the persons whom the petitioner is professionally representing would not be prejudice in any way, if they postpone filling of their applications under Sec. 125 of Cr. P.C. in view of pendency of this writ Petition. In this case it is necessary to observe that in view of the fact that interests of a large section of the society are affected, the Constitution Bench should hear the matter as expeditiously as possible.
