Delhi High Court

58,912 judgments

Year:

Parveen Kumar v. UOI

26 Nov 2001 · C. Hari Shankar · 2018:DHC:798

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging appointments of Assistant Directors in the Export Inspection Council, holding the petitioner ineligible and the appointments valid under the Recruitment Rules.

administrative petition_dismissed Significant writ petition Article 226 quo warranto Export Inspection Agency Recruitment Rules 1980

Prabhakar Tiwari v. Bank of India and Anr.

10 Nov 2001 · Jyoti Singh · 2023:DHC:805
Cites 0 · Cited by 3

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

Union of India v. Punita Devi

22 Jun 2001 · Vipin Sanghi; A.K. Chawla · 2019:DHC:377-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 4

The Delhi High Court held that compassionate appointment applications must be considered only within the concerned Ministry under the 5% vacancy ceiling, rejecting the claim for All India consideration.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant compassionate appointment Office Memorandum 22 June 2001 5% direct recruitment quota Central Administrative Tribunal

Parmod Kumar Kaushik & Ors. v. UOI & Ors.

27 Mar 2001 · S. Muralidhar; Sanjeev Narula · 2019:DHC:44-DB

The Delhi High Court held that seniority fixation for Inspectors/Accountants absorbed on merit cannot be altered by counting prior service under deputation-related Office Memorandums, setting aside the revised seniority list that downgraded the petitioners.

service_law petition_allowed Significant seniority fixation absorption by selection deputation Indo-Tibetan Border Police

Dilbagh Kaur Chandok v. State

06 Feb 2001 · Mukta Gupta · 2019:DHC:7899

The Delhi High Court upheld the acquittal of the respondent in a Section 138 NI Act case, holding that unaccounted cash transactions are illegal and unenforceable liabilities.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act dishonour of cheque unaccounted cash transaction illegal transaction

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

Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited v. Rampal

15 Oct 1998 · Anup Jairam Bhambhani · 2020:DHC:2189

The Delhi High Court held that a forum not properly constituted as a Permanent Lok Adalat under the Legal Services Authorities Act lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes or grant interim relief in electricity misuse cases, setting aside the impugned order.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Permanent Lok Adalat Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 Electricity Act, 2003 Section 138 Electricity Act

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
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

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 20

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 33

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 22

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 1

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 2

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

Naresh Kumar v. Union of India

25 Mar 1996 · S. Muralidhar; Sanjeev Narula · 2018:DHC:8394-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a candidate whose appointment was delayed due to employer's fault is entitled to notional seniority fixation with his batchmates and consequential benefits, distinguishing the Supreme Court's ruling in Rohitash Kumar.

administrative petition_allowed Significant seniority fixation delay in appointment character and antecedent verification notional seniority

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