Lieutenant Commander Prahlad Kumar Varshney v. Union of India and Others

Delhi HC16 Jul 2026W.P.(C)/9522/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court writ petition disposed of with direction to Armed Forces Tribunal to decide pending transfer application ('part heard' since 2023, arising from Navy Court-Martial punishment originally challenged in W.P.(C) 1069/1997, transferred as T.A.) expeditiously, within three months; expeditious disposal / delay in Tribunal proceedings; W.P.(C) 9522/2026; coram Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Amit Sharma, JJ.; decided 16.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with a direction to the Armed Forces Tribunal to expeditiously decide the petitioner's pending proceedings, particularly T.A. No.39 of 2009 (as recorded in the operative paragraph), and in any case within three months from the date of the order. ¶¶20

Lieutenant Commander Prahlad Kumar Varshney Vs Union of India and Others — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~74

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 9522/2026

¶4

LIEUTENANT COMMANDER PRAHLAD KUMAR VARSHNEY .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Maan, Advocate

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Mohit Bansal, Advocate for R- UOI

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

¶9

O R D E R % 16.07.2026

¶10

Heard.

¶11

Post-Court-Martial, while serving in Indian Navy, the petitioner suffered a punishment which was the subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1069/1997.

¶12

After the establishment of the Armed Forces Tribunal, the aforesaid writ petition came to be transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal vide T.A. No.439 of 2009.

¶13

Alleging that the final hearing in the present T.A. has been in progress since the year 2023, but has not attended finality, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the Tribunal be requested to decide the T.A. as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within a period of four weeks from today.

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/07/2026 at 11:49:29

¶16

As against above, learned counsel for the respondent states that he be granted time to take instructions in the matter, as the proceedings are pending since long.

¶17

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the present petition in the following manner

¶18

We could notice from the record that on 7^th September, 2022, the Tribunal has passed an order that the matter was listed before it on 3^rd November, 2022. Subsequent thereto, we are informed by learned counsel for the petitioner today that matter has been ‘part heard’ since the year 2023. If that be so, we deem it appropriate to direct the Tribunal to expeditiously decide the pending proceedings of the petitioner, particularly, T.A. No.39 of 2009, as claimed by learned counsel for the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within a period of three months from today.

¶19

We have not granted time to the respondents having regard to the fact that the order passed is innocuous.

¶20

The petition stands disposed of in above terms.

¶21

NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J

¶22

AMIT SHARMA, J

¶23

JULY 16, 2026/ ay/st

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/07/2026 at 11:49:29

Lieutenant Commander Prahlad Kumar Varshney v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lieutenant Commander Prahlad Kumar Varshney v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sodexo India Services Private Limited Vs Union of India & Anr.

Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr. Vs Ms. Manu and Ors.

M/S Verasys Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Abdul Samad Vs Commissioner of Customs & Anr.

Sachin Arora Vs Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr.

Aditi Chopra Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mrs Manju Malik Vs Land Acquisition Collector South West & Ors.

Shri Rajendra Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Ex Nkdscgd Vithal Dnyanu Patil

Union of India & Ors. Vs Cpl Hardeep Singh Khalsa

Constable Dharmendra Pal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Alluri Srinivas Vs Union of India & Anr.

Ms Retail Ggn LLP Vs M/S. Niam Holdings Pvt. Ltd.

Mumtaj Ahamad Vs Union of India and Ors.