Delhi High Court

80,411 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

Rajbir Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation

06 Aug 2002 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:7388-DB

The Delhi High Court held that under Section 33(2)(b) ID Act, the Industrial Tribunal's approval of dismissal requires only summary scrutiny of domestic inquiry and prima facie case, and non-informing of Defence Assistant right does not vitiate inquiry absent a request.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Section 33(2)(b) Industrial Disputes Act domestic inquiry Industrial Tribunal jurisdiction dismissal approval

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

F.S. Chauhan v. UOI & Ors.

21 Jun 2002 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2018:DHC:7783
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of an NTPC employee after a disciplinary enquiry, holding that procedural irregularities and allegations of bias did not vitiate the enquiry where the petitioner was given a fair opportunity and charges were supported by evidence.

labor petition_dismissed Significant disciplinary enquiry natural justice bias in enquiry procedural irregularities

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

S.P. Thapliyal v. Secretary General & Anr.

01 May 2002 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:9672-DB

The Delhi High Court held that under the Assured Career Progression Scheme, an employee is entitled to the second financial upgradation after 24 years of service irrespective of prior promotions, and directed grant of such benefit to the appellant.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Assured Career Progression Scheme financial upgradation promotion career advancement

ACME Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. Union of India

31 Mar 2002 · Jyoti Singh · 2019:DHC:5258
Cites 0 · Cited by 13

The Delhi High Court upheld an arbitral award ordering refund of advance payment for defective and uncommissioned Hot Mix Plants, affirming limited judicial interference in technical findings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

civil petition_dismissed Significant Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34 Composite contract Supply, erection and commissioning

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 4

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

M/S VIMAL TELEKRTONIX PRIVATE LTD v. M/S TATA TELECOM LTD

21 Sep 2001 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:7022-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a Board resolution authorizing a director to sign all documents includes authority to institute suit, but claims for extra work require proper proof and work orders to succeed.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Board resolution Authority to institute suit Extra work claims Quantum meruit

Union of India v. Punita Devi

22 Jun 2001 · Vipin Sanghi; A.K. Chawla · 2019:DHC:377-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 7

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

Vandhna Wadhwa v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

30 May 2001 · G. S. Sistani; Sangita Dhingra Sehgal · 2016:DHC:9111-DB

The Delhi High Court disposed of a habeas corpus petition concerning interim custody and visitation rights of a minor child, affirming Family Court jurisdiction over custody disputes.

family other habeas corpus child custody interim custody visitation rights

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

27 Mar 2001 · S. Muralidhar; Sanjeev Narula · 2019:DHC:44-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

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

S P Ashta v. Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board

12 Dec 2000 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:5859-DB

The Delhi High Court held that pay scale upgradation for a Superintending Engineer depends on completion of 13 years of Group 'A' service counted from promotion to a Group 'A' post and that Central Government service guidelines do not apply to the Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board.

service_law petition_dismissed Significant Central Pay Commission Superintending Engineer Group A service pay scale upgradation

Brahm Singh v. Pramila Devi

08 Jul 2000 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:7556-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal challenging a permanent injunction in favor of the respondent who proved ownership and possession of disputed land, holding that the appellant failed to establish any title or possession.

civil appeal_dismissed permanent injunction ownership possession agreement to sell

Shahnaz Ali & Anr v. Suresh Kumar Gera & Anr

04 Jun 2000 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:1513-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal of legal heirs seeking leave to defend a suit after their predecessor-in-interest withdrew the original leave to defend application and made admissions acknowledging liability.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant leave to defend legal heirs Order 37 CPC withdrawal of application

Government of Delhi v. North Delhi Power Ltd

16 Mar 2000 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:7108-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld that pension benefits for SVRS optees are payable by DISCOMS, not the Pension Trust, clarified qualifying service rules under CCS Pension Rules, and mandated constitution of Arbitral Tribunals to determine additional contributions.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme CCS Pension Rules 1972 qualifying service Rule 48-B

Government of Delhi v. North Delhi Power Ltd

16 Mar 2000 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:7109-DB

The Delhi High Court held that pension payments to employees who took voluntary retirement under DISCOMs’ SVRS are payable by the DISCOMs and not the pension trust, clarified the interpretation of CCS Pension Rules on qualifying service, and upheld the mandatory constitution of arbitral tribunals to determine additional pension contributions.

labor appeal_dismissed Significant Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme CCS Pension Rules 1972 qualifying service pension trust liability