Madras High Court Monthly Digest: June 2022 [Citations 233-276]

Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 233 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 276 NOMINAL INDEX Federation of Retired Officers of Transport Corporations v Chief Secretary to Government and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 233 Mr. Shaik Abdulla v. The Union of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 234 Dr. S Giridharan and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 235 SJ Suryah v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 236 Abdul Rashid Sahib v. Ramachandran and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 237 L Nandagopal Yadav v Mr Udai Pratap Singh and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 238 K Ravichandran and others v. The Chief Secretary and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 239 S Nalini v The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 240 P Arumugam v. The General Manager(Administration) TNCSC and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 241 S Gopikrishnan v. Regional Officer, CBFC and others, 2022 LiveLaw(Mad) 242 Deputy Commissioner of Police v. C Duraisamy, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 243 P. Sukumar v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 244 State v. A Duraimurugan Pandian Sattai @ Duraimurugan and Another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 245 Northern Arc Capital Limited v Sambandh Finance Private Limited and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 246 K Arumugam v State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 247 A Shanmugam v. The Deputy Inspector General of Police and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 248 Smartha Barhmins living in the State of Tamil Nadu practicing and propagating the Religious Philosophy and tents of Advaitha Philosophy through P.S Sundaram and others v. Union of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 249 M/s Ankit Ispat Private Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 250 M/s. Fenner (India) Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 251 The Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr v. M/s. Roca Bathroom Products Private Limited, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 252 Chandrasegaram Vijayasundaram and others v. Principal Commissioner (Revision Application) and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 253 S. Nalini v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 254 S. Manjula v. G. Shoba and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 255 Tvt.LAF Enterprises Versus Commissioner of Commercial Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 256 Udhaya Kumar v. The State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 257 A. Shaamsudeen Raja v Raneesha P.V., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 258 K.Sadagopan v. State Rep.by, Inspector of Police and ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 259 D.Chandra v. The Tahsildar, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 260 Ponvelraj v. The State Information Commissioner and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 261 B Nagaraj v. The State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 262 P Benjamin v. The Director General of Police and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 263 Bapuji Murugesan v. Mythili Rajagopalan, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 264 P Venkatachalam v. The Tahsildar (Batch), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 265 N Syamasundara Naidu v. V Dakshinamoorthy and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 266 K Kumaradoss v. The Principal Secretary to Government and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 267 P Maheswari v. The Secretary to Government, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 268 Dharampal R. Pandia versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 269 Mohamed Jiyaputheen v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 270 M/s.Progressive Stone Works Versus The Joint Commissioner (ST), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 271 Mahalakshmi v. The Superintendent of Police and others, 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 272 St. Mary's Matriculation Higher Secondary School v. .The Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 273 Sunku Vasundhara v State Bank of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 274 Dinesh v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 275 P.Sudha v. The Secretary and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 276 REPORTS 1. Differentiating Between Single Class Of Pensioners Based On Date Of Retirement To Deny Revised Pay Is Arbitrary: Madras High Court Case Title: Federation of Retired Officers of Transport Corporations v Chief Secretary to Government and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 233 The Madras High Court has observed that persons belonging to the same class cannot be discriminated against by creating an artificial class between them on the basis of date of retirement. The order of Justice C Saravanan came as a relief to the retired employees of various State Transport Undertakings (STU) who had approached the Court seeking implementation of the recommendations of the VII Central Pay Commission and for revision of their pension. The Court also observed that the State Transport Undertaking were part of the State Transport Department. Thus, there was an understanding that the salaries and pensions of the employees in STUs will be on par with their counterparts in Government Services. Thus, there was no reason to discriminate those employees who have retired earlier. ...

Madras High Court Monthly Digest: June 2022 [Citations 233-276]

Upasana Sajeev

Tags