Delhi High Court

93,563 judgments

Year:

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

Vinod Kumar Nijhawan & Anr. v. Kamla Nijhawan & Ors.

22 Aug 1995 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:7314-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a will confers a life interest in property to the testator's wife with ownership vested in the son, dismissing claims of absolute ownership by the wife.

property appeal_dismissed Significant will interpretation life interest ownership contingent bequest

Vinod Kumar Nijhawan & Anr. v. Kamla Nijhawan & Ors.

22 Aug 1995 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:7315-DB

The Delhi High Court held that a will confers a vested ownership right to the son subject to the wife's life interest, dismissing claims of absolute ownership by the wife over the suit property.

property appeal_dismissed Significant will interpretation life interest contingent bequest Indian Succession Act 1925

Chander Prakash v. State

26 Jul 1995 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:3146-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the murder conviction based on credible eyewitness testimony despite absence of weapon recovery and non-examination of the initial informant.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant eyewitness testimony Section 302 IPC murder conviction ocular evidence

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

19 Jul 1995 · C. Hari Shankar; Sudhir Kumar Jain · 2024:DHC:7648-DB
Cites 0 · Cited by 1

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 45

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

Achal Singh v. UOI

29 Mar 1995 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2015:DHC:1421-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal of a BSF constable for overstaying leave without sufficient cause, affirming the disciplinary authority’s subjective satisfaction based on objective evidence and rejecting the petitioner’s challenge to the authenticity of medical certificates and penalty proportionality.

criminal petition_dismissed Significant overstaying leave BSF Act 1968 disciplinary proceedings summary security force court

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

Devi Prasad v. Taj Sats Air Catering Ltd.

16 Aug 1994 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2014:DHC:2200

The Delhi High Court upheld the validity of retiring a workman at 55 years based on established custom and practice, dismissing an individual challenge in the absence of collective espousal under the Industrial Disputes Act.

labor petition_dismissed Significant retirement age superannuation industrial dispute Section 2A Industrial Disputes Act

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

Raminder Kaur v. Delhi Development Authority

21 Mar 1994 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2018:DHC:2831

The Delhi High Court held that denial of flat allotment under the "wrong address policy" cannot be based on mere suspicion and directed proper verification and a speaking order before deciding on the petitioner’s entitlement.

administrative other Significant wrong address policy ration card change of address allotment of flat

Maharaj Haider v. State

13 Mar 1994 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:902-DB

The Delhi High Court modified the appellant's conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, holding that the fatal stabbing was done in the heat of passion without premeditation.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant culpable homicide not amounting to murder murder heat of passion self-defense

Hotel Taj Palace v. Shri Ravi Rohilla

19 Nov 1993 · I. S. Mehta · 2016:DHC:2114

The Delhi High Court held that payment of one month's wages by money order prior to dismissal constitutes valid compliance with Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and allowed the employer's approval application validating the dismissal.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Section 33(2)(b) Industrial Disputes Act payment of one month's wages dismissal approval domestic inquiry

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

M/S Kushal Infraproject Industries (India) Ltd v. Umed Singh (Deceased) ThrLrs & Ors

03 Sep 1993 · The Chief Justice; V. Kameswar Rao · 2018:DHC:8720-DB

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal against an interlocutory order closing the right to lead evidence, holding such orders are not appealable judgments under the Delhi High Court Act and CPC.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant appealability interlocutory order judgment definition Delhi High Court Act 1966

Radha Krishan Verma & Anr. v. Rakesh Kumar Verma & Anr.

21 Aug 1993 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2015:DHC:6267-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld a consent decree partitioning property equally among siblings, ruling that restrictive conditions in a will on sale or partition are void under Section 138 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant partition suit will interpretation Indian Succession Act 1925 Section 138

Dipak Arora & Anr v. Vijay Bhushan Arora & Anr

04 Jun 1993 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Pratibha Rani · 2016:DHC:5600-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld a decree for refund of Rs. 12 lakhs based on a written MOU, rejecting unparticularized fraud pleas and reducing interest to 8% per annum.

civil appeal_allowed Significant memorandum of understanding parol evidence rule fraud and misrepresentation written contract

Central Board of Trustees (EPFO) v. M/S Era Infra Engineering Ltd.

03 May 1993 · V. Kameswar Rao · 2022:DHC:2137
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The High Court held that while the principal employer is liable for PF dues of workers employed through contractors, the Adjudicating Authority must conduct proper enquiry and identify beneficiaries before assessment, and procedural fairness must be ensured in appellate proceedings.

administrative remanded Significant Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Section 7A EPF Act principal employer liability contractors and sub-contractors

Parbhati Devi & Ors. v. State

06 Nov 1992 · Pradeep Nandrajog; Mukta Gupta · 2016:DHC:3979-DB

The Delhi High Court upheld convictions for cruelty under Section 498A IPC but acquitted the accused of murder under Section 302 IPC due to reasonable doubt arising from forensic and testimonial evidence.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant dying declaration Section 498A IPC dowry harassment benefit of doubt