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 moreAshok Kumar Dabas, a conductor with Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) since 1985 who had opted into a new pension scheme in 1992, resigned in 2014 citing family circumstances. His later request to withdraw the resignation was refused, and when he sought his retiral dues (gratuity, provident fund, leave encashment and pension), DTC informed him he was entitled only to provident fund and nothing else. The Central Administrative Tribunal and the Delhi High Court both upheld DTC's denial of the other benefits, and his legal heirs (he had since died) pursued the matter to the Supreme Court.
The Court held that under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, an employee who has completed five years of continuous service is entitled to gratuity upon resignation, retirement, superannuation, death or disablement: resignation does not disentitle an employee to gratuity. Since DTC could not show any government notification exempting it from the 1972 Act, the denial of gratuity was unjustified. The Court partly allowed the appeal, holding the legal heirs entitled to gratuity and leave encashment (with 6% interest from the date of resignation), but denied family pension since that was not admissible for a resigned employee under the applicable pension rules.
Resigning from a job does not forfeit an employee's right to statutory gratuity for completed years of service: gratuity under the 1972 Act is payable on resignation just as it is on retirement, unless the employer is specifically exempted by government notification.
