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 appellants were "Badli Kamdars" (substitute/daily-wage workers) of the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation who were later absorbed as permanent Conductors once a vacancy arose and they completed 180 days of service in the permanent cadre. Under a 1989 settlement with the workers' union, their permanent status and time-scale pay benefits ran from the date of absorption into the permanent cadre, but the employees argued they should get these benefits from the date they first joined as daily-wage Badli Kamdars, years earlier. An Industrial Tribunal initially ruled in the employees' favour, but the High Court's Single Judge and then its Division Bench both reversed that, upholding the Corporation's position, leading to this batch of appeals before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that Clause 20 of the binding 1989 settlement (which the employees never challenged as invalid) clearly tied permanent absorption and time-scale benefits to completion of 180 days of service after absorption into the permanent cadre, not from the date of initial daily-wage engagement. The Court found no factual or legal basis for the employees' claim to backdate benefits, noted they could not point to any appointment letter, rule, or regulation supporting an earlier date, and held that earlier judicial orders relied upon by the employees were decided on different facts and settlement clauses, so were not binding precedents here. As an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court also declined to re-appreciate evidence where the High Court had already reversed the Tribunal's factual findings. All the connected appeals were accordingly dismissed for lack of merit.
Benefits governed by a binding settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act are given effect strictly according to that settlement's own terms: workers cannot claim an earlier effective date for benefits just because they feel it fairer, if the settlement clause itself ties the benefit to a specific triggering event (here, permanent absorption).
