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, a Deputy General Manager who had served Union Bank of India for about 34 years with an unblemished record, was suspended in August 2018 shortly before his scheduled retirement in June 2019, over allegations of lax due diligence while sanctioning credit to certain firms. The Bank itself, in sworn affidavits before the Allahabad High Court, stated that the matter had a "vigilance angle" and had been referred to the CVC for its mandatory first-stage advice, and that a chargesheet would issue only after receiving that advice. Despite this, the Bank served the chargesheet on the appellant just twelve days before his superannuation date, without waiting for the CVC's advice.
The Supreme Court held that once the Bank itself acknowledged that Regulation 19 of the applicable 1976 Regulations required consultation with the CVC because the case had a vigilance angle, it was bound to actually wait for and consider that advice before serving a chargesheet. It could not backtrack. The Court did not need to decide the broader legal question of whether CVC consultation is always mandatory, because the Bank's own conduct and affidavits had already conceded its necessity in this case. Given that the chargesheet was rushed out just before retirement, contradicting the Executive Director's own earlier sworn statement, the Court found the Bank's actions arbitrary and mala fide. It quashed the entire disciplinary proceeding and chargesheet, directed release of the appellant's full retirement benefits, but denied back wages since nearly six years had passed since his superannuation.
When an employer commits, especially in a sworn court affidavit, to following a particular procedural safeguard (like seeking a regulator's advice) before taking disciplinary action, it cannot unilaterally abandon that commitment; doing so, particularly against a long-serving employee just before retirement, will be treated by courts as arbitrary and can void the entire disciplinary action.
