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 moreIn 1989, the Rajasthan government referred a wage/service-conditions dispute between petrol pump workers and their employers' association to an Industrial Tribunal. The employers' association never appeared before the Tribunal, which proceeded ex parte and decided the dispute entirely in the workers' favour in 1995. A single judge of the Rajasthan High Court initially set aside this ex parte award, but a Division Bench later reversed that and restored the award, again in the association's absence, since nobody appeared on its behalf at that hearing either, and then dismissed the association's review petition too.
The Supreme Court allowed the association's appeals, holding that it had never actually gotten a chance to contest the case on its merits, first missing the Tribunal proceedings, then missing the Division Bench hearing, and that this absence, in the circumstances, amounted to sufficient cause rather than deliberate default. The Court emphasized the basic principle that every party to a legal dispute has a right to contest the case on merits unless a recognized exception applies, and found none applicable here. It therefore set aside both the High Court's order and the original ex parte award, and remanded the entire dispute back to the Industrial Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits after giving both sides a genuine opportunity to file statements, amend pleadings, and lead evidence, with a six-month deadline for the Tribunal to decide.
An adverse order passed without a party ever having had a real chance to be heard can be set aside even years later, because the right to contest a case on its merits is a basic safeguard that courts protect unless the affected party was clearly at fault for its own absence.
