w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



The Annamalai University, Rep. By its Registrar, Cuddalore & Another v/s M. Somasundaram


Company & Directors' Information:- REP CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U26921TN2005PTC055138

Company & Directors' Information:- SOMASUNDARAM CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93090TN1956PTC002521

Company & Directors' Information:- ANNAMALAI CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Liquidated] CIN = U91110TN1956PTC000180

    W.A. No. 1506 of 2018 & C.M.P. No. 12006 of 2018

    Decided On, 24 July 2018

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

    For the Appellants: V.R. Kamalanathan, Advocate. For the Respondent: Balan Haridas (Caveator).



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent against the order dated 15.12.2017 in W.P.No.1238 of 2013 passed by this Court.)

M. Venugopal, J.

1. The Appellants/Respondents have preferred the instant Writ Appeal [as aggrieved persons] as against the Order dated 15.12.2017 in W.P.No.1238 of 2013 passed by the Learned Single Judge in allowing the Writ Petition.

2. Earlier, the Learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order on 15.12.2017 in W.P.No.1238 of 2013 filed by the Respondent (as Writ Petitioner) at paragraphs 4 and 5, had observed the following:

'4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of this Court, that the very same resolution passed by the first respondent was declared as invalid by this Court in W.P.No.19587 of 2011, dated 24.09.2012. The learned counsel for the petitioner further states as against the said order, writ appeal was filed and the order of this Court was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. However, the Hon'ble Division Bench held that the resolution passed is no relevance in respect of the settlement of pensionary and terminal benefits payable to the professor.

5. Further, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the writ petitioner was not in service at the time of passing of the resolution and this view of the matter, the writ petitioner is entitled for all the terminal benefits from the date of his retirement.'

and finally directed the Appellants/Respondents to settle the pensionary benefits due to the Respondent (Writ Petitioner), taking into account his date of retirement as 30.06.2006 and consequently, to pay the revised pay and pension in accordance with the rules, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

3. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that the Learned Single Judge should have dismissed the Writ Petition (filed by the Respondent/Writ Petitioner) on the ground that the Syndicate of the Annamalai University had passed a Resolution bearing No.63 dated 28.07.2010, which runs as under:

'Resolved that the staff members who retired between the academic year 2006-2007 and 2008-2009 and who have declined the offer of appointment be not allowed the benefit of refixation of pension in the revised scale of pay and their pension be fixed as per the pre-revised scale of pay.'

4. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Appellants contends that the Respondent/Writ Petitioner has not challenged the Resolution No.63 dated 28.07.2010 of the syndicate of the Annamalai University. Further, it is represented on behalf of the Appellants that the Learned Single Judge had failed to take into consideration that the Respondent/Writ Petitioner was paid pension from the date of re-employment i.e. on 01.07.2006 till September 2007 and from 01.09.2009 onwards.

5. Expatiating his submission, the Learned Counsel for the Appellants brings it to the notice of this Court that the Respondent/ Writ Petitioner made a request for re-employment and he was willing to work in the University upto the age of 65 years and based on such assurance, the University extended and renewed the contract of the Respondent/Writ Petitioner year after year and this made the University to take a decision not to recruit a Professor in the respective subject.

6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants proceeds to point out that the Respondent/Writ Petitioner resigned from his post on 11.12.2007, which resulted in great hardship for the administration to search for a substitute to teach respective students particularly during the middle of the academic year.

7. Yet another contention advanced on behalf of the Appellants is that the Learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate that the Appellants had considered the earlier service of the Respondent/ Writ Petitioner for a period of seven years and nine months in Medical College, Ludhiana was considered for pensionary benefits and counted his 'Qualifying Services' for obtaining pension benefits, though it will cause additional financial burden to the University.

8. Conversely, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Writ Petitioner that the Learned Single Judge had rightly directed the Appellants/Respondents to settle the pensionary benefits due to the Respondent/Writ Petitioner, after taking into account of his date of retirement as 30.06.2006 and resultantly had directed to pay the revised pay and pension in accordance with the rules, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order passed in the Writ Petition and the said order is free from any flaw.

9. It comes to be known that the Respondent/Writ Petitioner had joined the 1st Appellant/University as a Lecturer in Physiology on 30.12.1981. He was promoted as Reader on 01.10.1992 and later promoted as Professor. He attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2006. He was engaged as Contract Professor from 01.07.2006 and from the contract service, he was relieved with effect from 11.12.2007.

10. As a matter of fact, the Respondent/Writ Petitioner in the Writ Petition had taken a plea that he had put in 24 = years of regular service in the 1st Appellant/1st Respondent/University and 1 = years of service on contract basis. Earlier, prior to his joining in the 1st Appellant/1st Respondent University, he had rendered seven years and ten months of service [put together in Christian Medical College and Brown Memorial Hospital, Ludhiana and Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana]. Apart from that, the 1st Appellant/1st Respondent/University, through its Memorandum dated 10.06.1996, had informed the Respondent/Petitioner that the services rendered by him and other institutions before joining it, would be taken into account for the purpose of pensionary benefits and directed him to remit Rs.45,391/- and the said sum was recovered by the Appellants/Respondents in 36 instalments from his salary beginning from August 1996.

11. Thus, the stand of the Respondent/Petitioner is that he had rendered total service of 32 years and four months for the purpose of calculating his pension. Therefore, according to him, he is eligible to claim full pension and that he was not paid any pension for the period from 01.07.2006 to 31.12.2008. The Respondent/Writ Petitioner in his W.P.No.1238 of 2013 had also averred that the Appellants/Respondents in respect of others, who had retired from the regular service, who were taken back on contract service, were given full revised consolidated pay and pension and only in his case, different yard stick was sought to be applied without semblance of any legal basis.

12. It transpires from the Affidavit of the Respondent/Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.1238 of 2013 that he had furnished the list of following persons, who after the retirement were retained the faculty on contract basis and they were paid with the pension.

'(i) Dr.C.Ramachandran, who retired from the Dental Faculty on 30.06.2006, has been retained on contract basis and he is being given full pay and full pension

(ii) Dr.A.R.Annamalai, who retired on 30.6.2007 as Professor of Pharmacology, has been retained on contract basis and he is being given revised full pay and full pension

(iii) Dr.C.Subramaniam, who retired on 30.06.2009 as Professor of Surgery, has been retained on contract basis and he is being given revised full pay and full pension.

(iv) Dr.S.C.Sahoo, who retired as Professor and HOD, ENT, has taken up employment elsewhere and he is being given full revised pension

(v) Dr.Joseph P.Innocent, who retired as Professor of Microbiology, has taken up employment elsewhere and he is being given full revised pension.'

13. In pith and substance, the contention advanced on behalf of the Respondent/Petitioner is that when all retired individuals, who were also re-engaged on contract basis, were given pension and revised pension, the Respondent/Writ Petitioner cannot be denied of the same. Viewed in that perspective, the Respondent/ Writ Petitioner has filed the Writ Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the 1st Appellant/1st Respondent/ University to pay the difference in Gratuity, Pension, Arrears of Pension, Commuted Value of Pension, Provident Fund and all other benefits on the basis of the revised pay scale applicable to the Respondent/Petitioner after the implementation of the recommendations of the VI Pay Commission as per Gratuity cum Pension cum Provident Fund cum Insurance cum Family Pension Scheme for Teachers, framed by the 1st Appellant/1st Respondent/ University together with interest at 18% per annum.

14. This Court has heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellants and the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Petitioner and noticed their contentions.

15. It is to be borne in mind that if any Resolution is brought into force by any Competent Authority ordinarily the same will be prospective in nature. It may not apply in a retroactive or retrospective manner, especially when the said Resolution affects the right of concerned persons resulting in civil consequences. Also that, the accrued rights or crystallised rights to and in favour of the individual cannot be displaced in a lighter fashion.

16. As far as the present case is concerned, although a heavy reliance is placed on the Syndicate Resolution of the 1st Appellant/ 1st Respondent/University to the effect that 'the staff members who retired between the academic year 2006-2007 and 2008-2009 and who have declined the offer of appointment be not allowed the benefit of refixation of pension in the revised scale of pay and their pension be fixed as per the pre-revised scale of pay', this court pertinently points out that in the present case, the Respondent/ Writ Petitioner retired on 30.06.2006 and he served on reemployment from 01.07.2006 till September 2007. In this connection, it is not out of place for this Court to make a relevant mention that the Syndicate Resolution No.63 dated 28.07.2010 of the 1st Appellant/1st Respondent/University is not helpful and the same will not come to the aid/rescue of the Appellants because of the reason that the said Resolution is not applicable to the Respondent/Writ Petitioner. Besides that, the Syndicate Resolution No.63 dated 28.07.2010 of the 1st Appellant/1st Respondent/ University is not assailed by the Respondent/Writ Petitioner, yet, this Court is of the earnest opinion that it cannot be put against the Respondent/Writ Petitioner. When the Respondent/Petitioner, in para 4 of the Affidavit in W.P.No.1238 of 2013, had referred to five names of individuals [all retired persons], who were also reengaged on contract basis, were given pension and revised pension, then, the Respondent/Writ Petitioner cannot be differently treated and in short, he cannot be denied of the retirement benefits which he is entitled to re

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ceive legally. 17. In view of the foregoing discussions and also, this Court, taking note of the primordial fact that the Respondent/Writ Petitioner was not in service at the time when the Syndicate of the 1st Appellant/1st Respondent/University passed a Resolution No.63 dated 28.07.2010, then, this Court holds that the Respondent/ Petitioner, in Law, is entitled to claim all the terminal benefits due to him from the date of his retirement. 18. Looking at from any angle, the view taken by the Learned Single Judge in directing the Appellants/Respondents to settle the pensionary benefits due to the Respondent/Writ Petitioner after taking into account his date of retirement as 30.06.2006 and resultantly, to pay the revised pay and pension in accordance with the rules etc., they do not suffer from any material irregularities and patent legal infirmities. Resultantly, the Writ Appeal fails. 19. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, the Order dated 15.12.2017 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1238 of 2013 is affirmed by this Court, for the reasons assigned in this Appeal. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

03-08-2020 G. Jayasri Versus The State, Rep. By the Principal Secretary to the Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Dept., Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-07-2020 R. Kannan Versus State rep by the Inspector of Police, Inamkulathur Police Station, Trichy Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
30-07-2020 Garikipati Bulli Nayana Versus M/s. M.S.R. Housing & Resorts Private Limited rep. by its Managing Director & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
30-07-2020 Bhagyamma Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Sheshadripuram Police Station, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
30-07-2020 K.G. Ravikiran Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP High Court of Karnataka
30-07-2020 M/s. Linga Transformers, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Villupuram & Another Versus Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-07-2020 S. Sachin Narayan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-07-2020 M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., Rep.by its Branch Manager, Cantonment Versus Kaanikkaimery & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-07-2020 NSL Sugars Limited, Rep. by its Assistant General Manager (Liason) H.V. Amarnath Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary (Sugar) Commerce & Industries Department, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
28-07-2020 R. Ramesh Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary & Another High Court of Karnataka
24-07-2020 Vishwanath & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Ranebennur Town Police, Dharwad High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
24-07-2020 P. Prabhavathi Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Authority, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
24-07-2020 Narasimharao @ Appi & Others Versus State of Karnataka by Turuvekere Police Station, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
24-07-2020 K.P.P. Panneer Chelvan & Another Versus State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Chennai City-I Detachment, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-07-2020 D.Siluvai Venance (Wrongly mentioned as Permons) Versus State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Koodankulam Police Station, Tirunelveli Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
23-07-2020 Aqua Pump Industries, Rep by its Managing Partner Ramaswamy Kumaravelu & Another Versus N. Raju, Trading as S.M.Agriculture & Electronics, Bangalore High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-07-2020 Syed Hidayath @ Chotu Dubbel Versus State by KG Halli PS Police Station, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
23-07-2020 Vikram Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
22-07-2020 Y.M. Chetan & Another Versus State By Channarayapatna Town P.S, Rep. by SPP High Court of Karnataka
22-07-2020 V. Venkata Siva Kumar Versus Institute of Cost Accountants of India, Rep. by the President, M.K. Thakur & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-07-2020 Sankar @ Jeyasankar @ Sivasankaran Versus State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Udaiyalipatti Police Station, Pudukkottai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
20-07-2020 S. John Peter Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-07-2020 S. John Peter Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-07-2020 M/s. Sarvodhaya Sangam Khadhi Vasthralayam, Rep. by its Secretary, Govindarajalu Versus S. Dhanalakshmi High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-07-2020 Sk. Imran Ali Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
15-07-2020 Mohan Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by their Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 M/s. Iqra Granite Crusher, Rep. by its Partner Ahamedulla Khan, Kolar Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 Radhakrishna Reddy & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 Santhosha Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 A.N. Prakash Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 Asha & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 Sivarajan Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
13-07-2020 B. Manjunath & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
13-07-2020 Koti Lingaiah & Another Versus State of Karnataka by, Rep. by Govt. Pleader, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
13-07-2020 Dr. K.J. Joseph & Others Versus The Mattathur Grama Panchayath, Thrissur, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
10-07-2020 Sharathkumar Versus The State of Karnataka by Annapoorneshwari, Rep. by its Government Pleader, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
10-07-2020 Kuppusamy & Another Versus State of Tamilnadu, Rep by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Uthukottai Sub Division, Tiruvallur High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-07-2020 Mohammed Shahid Khaleel Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
09-07-2020 M.P. Lokesha & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
09-07-2020 S.R. Ganesan Versus The State rep., by its, Principal Secretary to Government, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-07-2020 Waheed Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Addl. Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
08-07-2020 M. Alagappan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Chief Secretary to Government, Personnel & Administrative Reforms (S) Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
08-07-2020 Sakunthala Versus State Rep. By the Inspector of Police Supreme Court of India
07-07-2020 Dr. Y. Kedareswari Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Social Welfare (SC Development) Department, Secretariat & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
06-07-2020 M/s. Srini Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Red. by its Managing Director, Tera Chinnappa Reddy Versus Union of India, rep. by its Secretary & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
06-07-2020 B.A.S. Devi Prasad Versus The Telangana Co-operative Tribunal, Rep. by its Registrar High Court of for the State of Telangana
06-07-2020 Sunitha Krishnan Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
03-07-2020 The Management of M/s. Therelek Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director, S. Venkatramana Bhat Versus K. Dharman High Court of Karnataka
01-07-2020 M/s. Salem Constructions, A registered Partnership Firm, Rep. By its Managing Director, N. Selvam & Others Versus K. Santhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-07-2020 K.T. Augustian Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by Secretary, Irrigation Dept., Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
30-06-2020 Dr. P.S. Sandeep & Others Versus The Government of India, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-06-2020 R. Sampath Versus Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
29-06-2020 P.K. Thankappan Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvalla Police Station, Thiruvalla [Crime No. 731 of 2009] Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
26-06-2020 Far N Par (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad Rep. by its Director Naraharisetti Sirusha Versus Galt Pharma Exports Private Limited, Secunderabad High Court of for the State of Telangana
26-06-2020 Bismi Aquatic Products, Rep by its Partner, M. Ashraf Ali Versus The Superintending Engineer, Ramanathapuram Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO, Ramanathapuram & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
25-06-2020 Suresh Versus State of Kerala Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala High Court of Kerala
25-06-2020 Sunil @ Sunil Ashok Gadivaddar Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
25-06-2020 M/s. Goodwill Leather Art Rep By its Prop Md Quddus ALi Alias Md Quddus Ali Molla Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-06-2020 Maruthi @ Polard Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
24-06-2020 V. Vasantha Versus The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Chief Secretary to the Government, Personnel & Administrative Reforms (S) Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
23-06-2020 M/s. Acme Trade And Agencies, ASSAM Versus Union of India Rep. By The Secy. to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Revenue, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-06-2020 Rohini Gogoi (Under Suspension) Versus State of Assam Rep. by the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Public Health Engineering Deptt. High Court of Gauhati
23-06-2020 Swetha Shri Selvakumar Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-06-2020 The State rep.by. Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai Versus R.S. Bharathi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-06-2020 Tanveer Ahmed Versus State Women Police Station, Rep. State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
22-06-2020 B. Ramamoorthy & Another Versus The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-06-2020 A. Devaraj Versus The State of Tamilnadu, rep. By its Chief Secretary to the Government, Personnel & Administrative Reforms (S) Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
19-06-2020 Maria Lijose Kumar & Others Versus The State, Rep by The Inspector of Police, CBCID-HQRS, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-06-2020 Chandra Marbles Mattannur, Rep By Its Properties C.M. Jeeja Versus C.H. Ramachandran & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-06-2020 M/s. Virgo Industries (Engineers) Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director Reethamma Joseph & Another Versus M/s. Venturetech Solutions Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director N. Mal Reddy High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-06-2020 M/s. Integrated Finance Company Limited rep. by its Legal Officer and duly constituted Attorney A. Hema Jothi Versus Garware Marine Industries Limited Registered Office at Chander Mukhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-06-2020 Prakasha Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
18-06-2020 N. Krishnamoorthy Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
16-06-2020 M. Nagalakshmi Versus Union of India, rep., by its Secretary, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India High Court of for the State of Telangana
12-06-2020 The New India Assurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Punnam Chander complex, Chowrastha, Hanmkonda, Warangal Versus Sangeraboina Uppalaiah & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
12-06-2020 M.V. Ramani Versus The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-06-2020 Md Kameual Islam & Others Versus The State, rep.by the Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town South Police Station, Dindigul & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
11-06-2020 G. Gnaneshwar Versus The State of A.P., rep. by Spl. Public Prosecutor for ACB, Hyderabad High Court of for the State of Telangana
11-06-2020 J. Antony Jayakumar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Department of Home (Prison IV), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-06-2020 Ircon International Limited Versus Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Chief Engineer High Court of for the State of Telangana
09-06-2020 State rep. by the Drugs Inspector, O/o. Director of Drugs Control, Tamil Nadu, Chennai Versus M/s. National Pharmaceuticals [A-3], A Division of Rider Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Kamalchand Jain, Director & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-06-2020 Sethupathi Ramalingam & Another Versus State rep. by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Sooramangalam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-06-2020 Rajeswari Versus The state rep by the Inspector of Police, Kariyapattinam Police Station, Nagapattinam High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-06-2020 The Salem District Lorry Owners Association rep.by its President V. Chennakesavan Versus The Inspector of Factories, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2020 Chennai Garrtech Ltd., Rep. By its Director, L.S. Abinesha Babu Versus Inspector General of Registration, Santhome & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2020 Anandan Versus State Rep by the Inspector of Police W-17, Peravallur Police Station Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2020 Sakthivel Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Inspector of Police, Neyveli Thermal Police Station, Neyveli T.S. High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2020 Nisar Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by Director General of Prosecution, High Court of, Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
04-06-2020 M. Parthasarathi & Another Versus The State Level Scrutiny Committee rep. by its Chairman Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2020 Jeyachandran Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Public (Foreigners.I) Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-06-2020 PUEBLO HOLDINGS LIMITED, Rep. by its authorised signatory Siddhesh Sham Kshirsagar Versus EMIRATES TRADING AGENCY LLC, A company incorporated under the appropriate laws of the United Arab Emirates having its registered office and/or business address at ETA Star House, United Arab Emirates & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-06-2020 Tamilnadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK), Rep. by its Chairman Prof. M.H. Jawahirullah Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-06-2020 V. Saravanan Versus Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Rep. by the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Kumbakonam & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
03-06-2020 Merugu Narsaiah @ Narsimha Reddy & Others Versus The State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
03-06-2020 Somasundaram @ Somu Versus The State Rep. By The Deputy Commissioner of Police Supreme Court of India
03-06-2020 P. Venkatasubramani & Another Versus Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman cum Managing Director, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 Indian Overseas Bank Officers' Association, Reg No: 321/MDS, Rep by its Joint General Secretary, R. Muthukumar Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 Dr. A.K. Sheik Manzoor Versus State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 A. Janakiraman Versus The Railway Employees Co-operative Credit Society Limited, rep. by its Chief Executive, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 Kalamani Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the District Collector of Vellore District & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras