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 Manipur government revised pensions for its employees but fixed 1 January 1996 as a cut-off date, giving a higher percentage of revised pension to those who retired on or after that date and a lower percentage to those who retired earlier. The Pensioners Association challenged this as an arbitrary classification violating Article 14. The Single Judge of the Manipur High Court agreed and struck down the distinction, but the Division Bench on appeal reversed that decision and upheld the State's cut-off date as a valid exercise based on financial resources.
The Supreme Court held that the controversy was squarely covered by its earlier decision in D.S. Nakara vs Union of India (1983), which held that pensioners of the same class cannot be arbitrarily split into sub-classes merely by a retirement cut-off date when a revision benefits an already-existing single class. The Court clarified that a cut-off date can validly apply when a wholly new benefit or scheme is introduced, but not where the issue is a revision of benefit for persons who already belong to one class. It held the Division Bench had erred in departing from D.S. Nakara, restored the Single Judge's order, and directed that all pensioners, pre- and post-1996 retirees alike, be given the revised pension on the same footing, with arrears paid within three months.
A retirement cut-off date cannot be used to split an existing single class of pensioners into unequal tiers when revising an existing pension benefit, doing so is arbitrary and violates Article 14, though a cut-off date can be valid when an entirely new benefit is being introduced for the first time.
