Delhi high court's Justice Yashwant Varma, who courted controversy over the alleged discovery of cash from his official residence, was appointed a high court judge in 2014 and transferred to the national capital in October 2021.
The purported discovery followed a major fire at his official residence.
The 56-year-old judge, enrolled as an advocate in 1992, was appointed as an additional judge of the Allahabad high court on October 13, 2014 and took oath as a permanent judge of that court on February 1, 2016.
While the Supreme Court collegium headed by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna has initiated the process to transfer Justice Varma from Delhi high court to the Allahabad high court, the judge did not hold his court on Friday.
Justice Varma was born on January 6, 1969 in Allahabad.
He studied BCom (Honours) course at Hansraj College at Delhi University and obtained his LLB degree from Madhya Pradesh's Rewa University.
As an advocate at the Allahabad high court, he practised matters of constitutional, labour and industrial legislations aside from corporate laws, taxation and allied branches of law.
He was also the special counsel for the Allahabad high court from 2006 till his elevation apart from being the chief standing counsel for the Uttar Pradesh government from 2012 till August 2013 when he was designated as a senior advocate.
Some of the significant judgments and orders passed by a bench headed by Justice Varma include setting aside an order which upheld an arbitral award asking low-cost airline SpiceJet and its promoter Ajay Singh to refund Rs 579 crore plus interest to media baron Kalanithi Maran.
He also stayed the proceedings initiated by the Lokpal against Jharkhand Mukti Morcha chief Shibu Soren on the basis of BJP leader Nishikant Dubey's complaint of 'corruption' against the former Jharkhand chief minister.
A division bench headed by Justice Varma also set aside a Central Board of Direct Taxes order which refused to grant exemption from tax liability to Noida on account of its 'income' from loans to various entities.
A division bench he presided rejected petitions by the Congress challenging the initiation of tax reassessment proceedings against it for a period of four years by tax authorities.
Another division bench headed by the judge rejected a challenge to the provisions on power of National Financial Reporting Authority to investigate and penalise misconduct by chartered accountants.
© 2025