Delhi High Court

30,090 judgments

Year:

M/S Jaiprakash Hyundai Consortium v. M/S SJVN Limited

09 Aug 2002 · C. Hari Shankar · 2024:DHC:5412

Execution petition filed after 12 years seeking enforcement of a Dispute Review Board recommendation is barred by limitation and not maintainable under Order XXI CPC.

civil petition_dismissed Significant execution petition limitation period Article 136 Limitation Act Section 51 Limitation Act

Mahender Singh v. The State & Ors.

01 Jul 2002 · Manmohan, ACJ; Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J · 2024:DHC:2704-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal against a Single Judge's order in a probate appeal, holding that Section 100A CPC bars further appeals beyond the Single Judge in appeals arising under special enactments like the Indian Succession Act.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Letters Patent Appeal Section 100A CPC Indian Succession Act probate

Kripa Narain Shahi v. New Delhi Municipal Council

24 May 2002 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:227-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the rejection of petitioners' claim for retrospective regularization on the Regular Muster Roll, affirming that regularization is governed by prescribed eligibility criteria and cannot be antedated without lawful basis.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Regular Muster Roll Temporary Muster Roll Regularization NDMC

Lalita Yadav v. Mam Raj Yadav

15 May 2002 · C. Hari Shankar

The Delhi High Court allowed transfer of matrimonial petitions from Tis Hazari to Dwarka Courts for the petitioner's convenience, directing expeditious disposal within eight months.

family appeal_allowed transfer petition Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 restitution of conjugal rights domestic violence

Prabhakar Tiwari v. Bank of India and Anr.

10 Nov 2001 · Jyoti Singh · 2023:DHC:805
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Delhi High Court held that the Prathama Pariksha Certificate is not equivalent to matriculation for appointment in public sector banks, affirming employer autonomy in prescribing eligibility qualifications.

employment petition_dismissed Significant Prathama Pariksha Certificate matriculation equivalence public sector banks Government of India Notification 2001

Ashok Kumar v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

30 Dec 1999 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court held that AICTE clarifications imposing a first class Master's degree requirement cannot retrospectively deny promotion rights under the original 1999 circular, allowing petitioners' promotion to Lecturer (Selection Grade).

administrative appeal_allowed Significant AICTE circular 1999 Lecturer Selection Grade promotion eligibility first class Master's degree

Mr. Shivam Tiwari v. Rohtash Kumar

05 Jul 1999 · C. Hari Shankar; Ajay Digpaul · 2025:DHC:1470-DB
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the Tribunal's order permitting belated pay refixation under the ACP Scheme, holding that the option had to be exercised within the prescribed time and delay barred the claim.

service_law appeal_allowed Significant Assured Career Progression Scheme pay refixation delay and laches acquiescence

Amit Jain & Ors. v. State & Anr.

15 Oct 1998 · Navin Chawla, J. · 2024:DHC:2069

The Delhi High Court set aside the summoning order in a cheating case related to a falsified arbitral award, emphasizing the need for prima facie evidence and proper consideration of offence ingredients before issuing summons.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant summoning order Section 420 IPC arbitral award falsification

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 20

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