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 group of workmen employed through contractors at BHEL's Haridwar unit were terminated, and a Labour Court reference asked whether this was justified. The Labour Court held that the workmen were, in substance, direct employees of BHEL (not the contractor) based on gate passes issued to them and an alleged concession by BHEL's representative, and ordered reinstatement without backwages for 64 workers. The Allahabad High Court (Uttarakhand) upheld this award, and after an earlier round before the Supreme Court sent the matter back for review, the High Court's review again went against BHEL, prompting this batch of appeals.
The Supreme Court held that the Labour Court's findings were perverse. It found that the gate passes were issued only for safety/administrative reasons at the contractor's own request, not as evidence of a direct employer-employee relationship, and that the "concession" relied upon was disputed and, in any event, could not bind BHEL on a mixed question of fact and law. Applying settled tests (who pays wages, and who exercises primary control and supervision), the Court found the contractor, not BHEL, paid wages and exercised primary control, so the contract was not a "sham." It also held there was no evidence that the contract workers performed work "ordinarily part of" BHEL's industry, which was necessary to invoke the extended statutory definition of "employer." The impugned High Court and Labour Court orders were set aside and the appeals allowed.
Merely being issued a company gate pass or working alongside regular staff does not, by itself, make a contract worker a direct employee of the principal employer: courts look at who actually pays wages and who exercises real, primary control over the work, and a lawyer's concession on a mixed question of law and fact cannot bind a party in later proceedings.
