Real judgements, distilled
Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1094
An older qualification must still satisfy the eligibility rules governing the appointment sought. Here, the certificate's early date did not secure reinstatement, and rejection of eligibility should not be confused with a conclusive finding that the certificate was forged.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1095
A party benefiting from a conditional stay must meet its deposit requirement or face enforcement. The additional ₹15 crore deposit secures the pending dispute; it does not settle the land's final compensation or amount to an immediate payment to the landowners.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1093
An alleged attempt to kill does not become a lesser offence simply because the victim avoided a fatal injury. Restoring this charge means the accusation must be tried; it does not establish that the accused is guilty.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1090
For the assessment in this case, assistance reducing ordinary manufacturing costs was taxable even though the government wanted to encourage industry. The purpose and actual operation of the particular subsidy mattered more than its general development label.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1091
Proof that someone caused a serious injury does not by itself prove the additional ingredients of robbery. A court can substitute a lesser offence supported by the evidence; the sentencing reduction here depended on Appa's particular circumstances.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 1092
Someone challenging an election must ensure that the personal-presentation requirement is met and can be proved. Merely entering the court building does not establish compliance, and a filing defect can end the challenge before the election allegations are examined.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1088
An employee who retires on 30 June may be entitled to the increment that falls due on 1 July after completing a year of service. Authorities that delay paying the amounts due must pay interest after the deadline set by the court.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1089
Recruitment must follow the qualifications stated in the advertisement and the governing Recruitment Rules. A court will not override a merit-based eligibility decision made under those rules merely because the candidate concerned was higher in the written test.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8797
A person who occupied property only because of employment has no independent right to remain once the employment and decree end. Even when a petition fails, courts can make practical arrangements to let a person recover personal belongings.
14543 more judgements for members
You're seeing the newest cases. Log in — it's free — to keep scrolling, search by name or judge, and filter by court or legal area.
Log in to see moreThe appellant worked as a college tutor and then lecturer of English from 1974, but when Maharashtra switched its education system to the "10+2+3" pattern in 1976, she was declared "surplus" in the senior college and re-appointed in the junior college from the very next day, at a lower pay-scale (Rs. 500-900 instead of Rs. 700-1600). She sought retroactive pay-scale protection under a 1991 Government Resolution covering "rest category" teachers rendered surplus by the curriculum change, but the Bombay High Court dismissed her writ petition, holding a one-day gap in her service broke its continuity and placed her outside the protected category.
The Supreme Court found it undisputed that the appellant fell within the "rest category" of teachers contemplated by the 1991 Resolution, as acknowledged in the College's own contemporaneous letters, and that the only reason she was denied the benefit was an artificial one-day break between her termination from the senior college and her re-appointment in the junior college. Relying on a Bombay High Court precedent (Lentin v. Principal, St. Xavier's College) that deprecated using such artificial breaks, caused merely by administrative/curriculum changes, to deny benefits to teachers, the Court held security of tenure for teachers is of real importance and such technical breaks should not defeat substantive continuity of service, especially since she had already received a pension requiring 20 years of continuous service. The Court also rejected the delay/laches objection given the issue had been pursued before various authorities over time. It concluded she was entitled to the Rs. 700-1600 pay-scale and all consequential benefits under the 1991 Resolution, directing the respondents to calculate and pay the resulting emoluments within three months (with 12% simple interest only if that deadline was missed), and allowed the appeal with parties bearing their own costs.
A purely technical or "artificial" one-day gap in employment records, caused by an administrative reshuffle rather than any fault of the employee, cannot be used to deny a worker continuity-of-service benefits, especially where other official records (like pension eligibility) already treat the service as continuous.
