S.SESHACHALAM Vs. CHAIRMAN, BAR COUNCIL OF TAMIL NADU
LAWS(SC)-2014-12-41
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on
December 16,2014
S.Seshachalam
Appellant
VERSUS
Chairman, Bar Council Of Tamil Nadu
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
DR. SUSHMA SHARMA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]UNION OF INDIA ANOTHER SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. PARAMESWARAN MATCH WORKS:GANDHIJI COTTAGE MATCH WORKS [REFERRED TO]
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION ANIL KUMAR VS. SADHANA CHAUDHARY:STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
RAMRAO VS. ALL INDIA BACKWARD CLASS BANK EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. AMAR NATH GOYAL [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION VS. SHYAM SHIKSHA PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN [REFERRED TO]
KEDAR NATH TIWARI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY VS. DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
SHIVAM SHARMA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2018-7-67] [REFERRED TO]ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL VENDORS VS. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION [LAWS(DLH)-2018-2-97] [REFERRED TO]
JINAN. K.R., S/O.K.RAMAN, VS. BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI – 682031, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY [LAWS(KER)-2016-11-116] [REFERRED TO]
JAGMOHAN SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2016-7-74] [REFERRED TO]
JANHIT ABHIYAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2022-11-25] [REFERRED TO]
ABHIJIT MADHAVRAO PATIL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-10-30] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVAM SHARMA VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-3-197] [REFERRED TO]
RADHAKRISHNA KURUP VS. NADAKKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. [LAWS(KER)-2018-7-638] [REFERRED TO]
JOGINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2020-8-5] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA & ANR VS. SHANKER RAJU [LAWS(DLH)-2019-4-201] [REFERRED TO]
Y.N. NANJAPPA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2016-2-123] [REFERRED TO]
ROHINISH PATHAK VS. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2019-2-279] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMED AJAZ ALI KHAN VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2021-10-31] [REFERRED TO]
JAYSHRIBEN JAYSHANKARBHAI BARAIYA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-12-18] [REFERRED TO]
SOCIAL JURIST, A CIVIL RIGHTS GROUP VS. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2018-10-51] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJABHAI MERKHIBHAI BHARAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY [LAWS(GJH)-2016-6-307] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVAM SHARMA VS. STATE OF H P & ORS [LAWS(HPH)-2018-7-220] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVAM SHARMA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2018-7-154] [REFERRED TO]
P. RAMU VS. THE SECRETARY, BAR COUNCIL OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-4-97] [REFERRED TO]
TEJASVI ATUL NAHATA VS. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-2-287] [REFERRED TO]
KEWAL KIRSHAN RANA VS. OIL [LAWS(GJH)-2017-3-448] [REFERRED TO]
YASH PRAMESH RANA OF MUMBAI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2020-5-136] [REFERRED TO]
GAURAV KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2024-7-93] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Whether proviso to Section 16 Explanation II (5) of Tamil Nadu Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1987 denying the payment of two lakh rupees to the kin of advocates receiving pension or gratuity or other terminal benefits would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and whether distinguishing this class of advocates from other law graduates enrolling in the Bar straight after their law degree did not have any rational basis are the points falling for consideration in these appeals.
(3.)Similar challenge is made to Section 1(3) of the Bihar State Advocates' Welfare Fund Act 1983 which excludes the persons who have retired from service and are in receipt of retiral benefits from their employers from the purview of the Bihar State Advocates' Welfare Fund Act.
For convenience, appeals challenging the provisions of Tamil Nadu Advocates' Welfare Fund Act are taken as lead case.
(2.)Whether proviso to Section 16 Explanation II (5) of Tamil Nadu Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1987 denying the payment of two lakh rupees to the kin of advocates receiving pension or gratuity or other terminal benefits would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and whether distinguishing this class of advocates from other law graduates enrolling in the Bar straight after their law degree did not have any rational basis are the points falling for consideration in these appeals.
(3.)Similar challenge is made to Section 1(3) of the Bihar State Advocates' Welfare Fund Act 1983 which excludes the persons who have retired from service and are in receipt of retiral benefits from their employers from the purview of the Bihar State Advocates' Welfare Fund Act.
For convenience, appeals challenging the provisions of Tamil Nadu Advocates' Welfare Fund Act are taken as lead case.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.