Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

M. SELVANATHAN AND ANR. ETC. versus THE REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI AND ORS. ETC.

Decided
11 February 2005
Judges listed
R.C. LAHOTI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2005] 2 S.C.R. 1 · 2005 INSC 70

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

G.P. MATHUR, J. The issue involved in these appeals is similar to that of Civil Appeal Nos. 6-7 of 1998 and Civil Appeal Nos. 4-5 of l 998. In these cases, the Central Administrative Tribunal had allowed the O.A. flied by some of the respondents following· its earlier judgment and order dated 5.11.1996 given in O.A. No. 199/1996 and 0.A. No. 214/1996 and the writ petition filed by the appellants challenging the said ord.er was dismissed by the Madras High Court.

p. 2, margin A

For the reasons given in Civil Appeal Nos. 6-7 of 1998 etc. these appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Madras Bench) is set aside. R.P. Appeals allowed.

p. 2, margin B