Search Judgments
Search by legal issue, facts, citation, statute, or case name
IMAX Corporation v. E-City Entertainment (I) Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court held that foreign arbitral awards are enforceable only against parties to the arbitration, refused enforcement against non-parties absent fraud, and upheld limitation and public policy defenses including FEMA violations.
Union of India v. Dr. Rustom Sam Boyce
Mesne profits under the Bombay Rent Act are payable only from the date of eviction decree as possession remains lawful during suit pendency, and mesne profits enquiry is an independent proceeding distinct from execution of the decree.
Brahm Singh v. Pramila Devi
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.
Ramchandra Vishnu Sable & Ors. v. Narayan Shankarrao Game Patil & Ors.
The Bombay High Court held that liquidated damages awarded must be reasonable and not penal, reducing the award to refund of earnest money with interest, clarifying the application of Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act.
Shahnaz Ali & Anr v. Suresh Kumar Gera & Anr
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.
Balwan Singh & Ors. v. DDA & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the Lt. Governor's revisional order annulling fraudulent land consolidation proceedings under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings Act without prior notice, recognizing pervasive fraud as unlawful consideration dispensing with the right to hearing.
Government of Delhi v. North Delhi Power Ltd
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.
Government of Delhi v. North Delhi Power Ltd
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.
Government of Delhi v. North Delhi Power Ltd
The Delhi High Court held that pension liabilities for voluntary retirement under DISCOMS’ SVRS are payable by the DISCOMS, not the Pension Trust, and clarified the computation of qualifying service under CCS Pension Rules.
Government of Delhi v. North Delhi Power Ltd
The Delhi High Court held that pension payments for employees opting for special voluntary retirement schemes by electricity DISCOMS are the companies' liability, not the Pension Trust's, and clarified pension eligibility rules under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 including rounding of qualifying service but excluding five years’ weightage for eligibility.
Government of Delhi v. North Delhi Power Ltd
The Delhi High Court held that pension payments to employees under Special Voluntary Retirement Schemes are initially payable by DISCOMS, not the Pension Trust, clarified the interpretation of CCS Pension Rules on qualifying service and pension eligibility, and upheld the constitution of Arbitral Tribunals to determine additional contributions.
Government of Delhi v. North Delhi Power Ltd
The Delhi High Court held that pension liabilities for employees opting for Special Voluntary Retirement Schemes lie with the DISCOMS, not the Pension Trust, clarified pension calculation rules, and upheld the necessity of Arbitral Tribunals to determine additional contributions.
Government of Delhi v. North Delhi Power Ltd
The Delhi High Court held that pension payments to employees who voluntarily retired under DISCOMS’ special schemes are payable by the DISCOMS, not the Pension Trust, and clarified the interpretation of qualifying service under CCS Pension Rules.
Government of Delhi v. North Delhi Power Ltd
The Delhi High Court upheld that pension payments for voluntary retirees under DISCOMs’ SVRS are payable by the DISCOMs, not the Pension Trust, and clarified the computation of qualifying service under CCS Pension Rules.
Government of Delhi v. North Delhi Power Ltd
The Delhi High Court held that pensionary benefits under Special Voluntary Retirement Schemes are payable by DISCOMS, not the Pension Trust, clarified qualifying service calculations under CCS Pension Rules, and upheld the necessity of Arbitral Tribunals to determine liabilities.
Government of Delhi v. North Delhi Power Ltd
The Delhi High Court held that pension benefits for employees opting for Special Voluntary Retirement Schemes are not payable from the Pension Trust, mandated constitution of arbitral tribunals to determine additional employer contributions, and clarified the computation of qualifying service under CCS Pension Rules.
Government of Delhi v. North Delhi Power Ltd
The Delhi High Court held that pension liabilities for employees opting for Special Voluntary Retirement Schemes by electricity DISCOMS are not payable from the Pension Trust but initially by DISCOMS, and clarified the correct interpretation of qualifying service and pension rules under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Government of Delhi v. North Delhi Power Ltd
The Delhi High Court held that pension liability for employees opting for Special Voluntary Retirement Schemes lies with the DISCOMS, not the Pension Trust, clarified qualifying service calculations under CCS Pension Rules, and upheld the necessity of Arbitral Tribunals to determine additional contributions.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
The High Court quashed orders under Section 14-B and appellate orders under Section 7-I of the Employees Provident Fund Act for lack of reasoned consideration and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication with directions to consider the petitioner's submissions.