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 moreA contract driver employed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) was dismissed after a disciplinary enquiry found him guilty of unauthorised absence. During a later departmental review, he was given a fresh contract appointment, but he never challenged either his original termination or the terms of this fresh appointment. He instead went to the High Court seeking "continuity of service", i.e., that his employment be treated as unbroken from the date of his original termination to his re-engagement, for seniority and regularisation purposes. Both the Single Judge and a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled in his favour, relying on an earlier batch judgment covering similarly placed workers.
The Supreme Court held that continuity of service can only be granted when the underlying termination order is itself set aside, since the workman had not challenged his termination or his fresh appointment, there was no legal basis to treat his service as continuous through the gap. It found the High Court had mechanically applied directions meant for a batch of differently-situated workers (some terminated without any enquiry at all) to this case, without examining that here a full enquiry had, in fact, been held and never challenged. The Court set aside both the Single Judge's and the Division Bench's orders and held that the respondent's seniority would run only from the date of his fresh appointment, not from his original date of joining.
An employee who accepts a fresh appointment without ever legally challenging the termination that preceded it cannot later claim "continuity of service" through the gap: seniority and related benefits will run only from the date of re-appointment, not the earlier termination date.
