Delhi High Court

29,282 judgments

Year:

Rajesh Gomes v. New Delhi Municipal Council

08 Oct 1998 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:254-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the denial of retrospective regularization as driver, holding that regularization is valid only from the date of passing the Trade Test and approval by the Selection Committee as per prior court orders.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant regularization Trade Test Temporary Muster Roll Regular Muster Roll

Luvleen Maingi v. Union of India

24 Sep 1998 · Yashwant Varma; Ravinder Dudeja · 2024:DHC:9319-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 8

The Delhi High Court held that gold jewellery worn by a foreign national on arrival in India is personal effects exempt from customs duty and cannot be confiscated without statutory basis, quashing the confiscation order.

customs petition_allowed Significant Customs Act, 1962 Baggage Rules Personal jewellery Foreign national

Nilkamal Crates and Containers & Anr. v. Ms. Reena Rajpal & Anr.

01 Sep 1998 · C. Hari Shankar · 2023:DHC:8087

The court held that while the word marks NILKAMAL and NILKRANTI are not deceptively similar, the defendants' device mark is deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' device mark, granting injunction against the device mark's use but not against the word mark NILKRANTI.

civil appeal_allowed Significant trademark infringement passing off deceptive similarity trade marks act 1999

Tata Steel Limited v. Tyo Trading Enterprises & Ors.

25 Aug 1998 · Yashwant Varma; Ravinder Dudeja · 2024:DHC:108-DB

The Delhi High Court held that the court has territorial jurisdiction to try a suit where part of the cause of action arises within its jurisdiction, allowing the appellant's appeal against dismissal on jurisdictional grounds.

civil appeal_allowed Significant territorial jurisdiction cause of action Section 20 CPC Letter of Credit

Sumlesh Devi v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

22 Jun 1998 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:599-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision granting compassionate allowance to the widow of a dismissed police constable, ruling that entitlement is not contingent on minimum qualifying service of 10 years.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant compassionate allowance CCS Pension Rules 1972 dismissal from service minimum qualifying service

Association of Qualified and Trained Technologists, AIIMS v. Union of India

08 Jul 1997 · C. Hari Shankar; Amit Sharma · 2024:DHC:9056-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 27

The Delhi High Court held that uninterrupted ad hoc appointments explicitly stated as temporary qualify as temporary appointments under CCS Pension Rules, entitling employees to Old Pension Scheme benefits for the entire service period prior to regularization.

service_law petition_allowed Significant Old Pension Scheme New Pension Scheme temporary appointment ad hoc appointment

Union of India v. Suresh Kumar Meena

20 Sep 1996 · C. Hari Shankar; Sudhir Kumar Jain · 2024:DHC:7720-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 17

The Delhi High Court upheld the entitlement of a Scheduled Tribe candidate to one grace mark under a binding Department of Posts order, dismissing the Union of India's petition challenging the grant of promotion.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant grace marks Limited Departmental Competitive Examination Scheduled Tribe candidate Department of Posts

Krishan Kumar Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

05 Jul 1996 · Sanjeev Sachdeva; Manoj Jain · 2023:DHC:4037-DB
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that an unconditional resignation results in forfeiture of pension rights under NABARD Pension Regulations, rejecting the petitioner's claim equating resignation with voluntary retirement.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant resignation voluntary retirement pension entitlement NABARD Pension Regulations 1993

V.P. Kathuria and Ors. v. Cement Corporation of India and Anr.

09 Apr 1996 · Jyoti Singh · 2024:DHC:8644
Cites 2 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that employees who retired or resigned before delayed DPCs but were in service on the retrospective promotion date are entitled to notional promotions with consequential benefits.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant retrospective promotion Departmental Promotion Committee notional promotion zone of consideration

MMTC Ltd v. P. K. Das & Ors.

11 Sep 1995 · C. Hari Shankar; Sudhir Kumar Jain · 2024:DHC:8083-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld that recovery of long-standing excess perks paid to retired senior executives sanctioned by the employer's Board is impermissible and violates Article 14, dismissing MMTC's appeal.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant recovery of excess payments perks and allowances Department of Public Enterprises Article 14

BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. D.P. Sharma

19 Jul 1995 · C. Hari Shankar; Sudhir Kumar Jain · 2024:DHC:7648-DB

An employee who avails voluntary retirement under SVRS on a reduced pay scale cannot later claim retrospective enhancement of pay or benefits subsumed within the SVRS package.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Voluntary Retirement Scheme Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme Employer-employee relationship Pay scale revision

Smt Usha Devi v. Union of India and Anr

25 May 1995 · C. Hari Shankar; Sudhir Kumar Jain · 2024:DHC:7783-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 26

The Delhi High Court held that dismissal for habitual unauthorized absence does not bar grant of compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the CCS (Pension) Rules if the misconduct does not involve moral turpitude or dishonesty, and directed grant of allowance to the petitioner widow.

administrative petition_allowed Significant compassionate allowance Rule 41 CCS Pension Rules 1972 dismissal from service unauthorized absence

A.ES ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED v. UGRO CAPITAL LIMITED & ANR.

26 Sep 1994 · V. KAMESWAR RAO · 2023:DHC:3519

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition seeking appointment of arbitrators under the MSA as the petitioner was not a party to that agreement, holding that disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.1 are governed solely by the FA with arbitration seat at Kolkata.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 11(6) Master Service Agreement Facility Agreement

Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. v. Priyanka

08 Apr 1994 · C. Hari Shankar; Anoop Kumar Mendiratta · 2024:DHC:9843-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that an OBC certificate issued by GNCTD authorities on the basis of a certificate from another State does not qualify for OBC reservation under a specific recruitment advertisement, validating the cancellation of the respondent's candidature.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant OBC certificate reservation Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board Department of Health and Family Welfare

Pankaj Kumar Pathak v. Canara Bank Erstwhile Syndicate Bank

01 Nov 1993 · Avneesh Jhingan · 2025:DHC:10299

The Delhi High Court held that deduction of one third pension on compulsory retirement without a reasoned order and consultation with the Board of Directors violates natural justice and set aside the deduction.

administrative petition_allowed Significant pension deduction compulsory retirement natural justice Regulation 33

Birma Devi and Ors. v. UOI and Anr

10 Sep 1993 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:760-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court held that casual labourers granted temporary status but not regularised before retirement are entitled to pensionary benefits due to the employer's failure to regularise, overruling the denial of pension on procedural grounds.

labor appeal_allowed Significant temporary status casual labourers regularisation pensionary benefits

National Building Construction Corporation v. M/s Sharma Enterprises

02 Apr 1992 · Jasmeet Singh
Cites 2 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court upheld the arbitral award except for the interest component, holding that judicial interference under Section 34 is limited and the contract barred pendente lite interest.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 Section 31(7) Contract termination

Ajay Kumar Bhagat and Ors. v. B.L. Sherwal and Anr.

31 Dec 1991 · Chandra Dhari Singh · 2023:DHC:5402

The Delhi High Court dismissed a civil contempt petition for non-compliance of an interim order due to delay beyond the one-year limitation period under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

civil petition_dismissed Significant civil contempt wilful disobedience limitation period Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

Ari Singh (Deceased) Thr. LRs v. UOI

22 Jul 1991 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:563
Cites 0 · Cited by 6

The Delhi High Court dismissed a restoration application filed after a 25-year delay due to insufficient grounds for condonation of delay and upheld the dismissal of the original appeal for default.

civil appeal_dismissed condonation of delay restoration of appeal default dismissal Limitation Act

Vipin Kumar and Anr v. Union Public Service Commission and Ors

20 Sep 1990 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:345-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

The Delhi High Court upheld UPSC's recruitment process, ruling that introducing a screening test with 50% interview weightage before commencement was lawful and not arbitrary.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant recruitment process screening test interview marks allocation rules of the game