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 respondent's father died in 2001 while working for Canara Bank, four months short of retirement, and the respondent applied for compassionate appointment under the bank's 1993 scheme. The bank rejected the claim, citing that the family received a family pension and that the respondent was over-age for the post (though the scheme allowed age relaxation which was not considered). After a writ petition succeeded in the Kerala High Court directing reconsideration, the bank's MD & CEO again refused the claim, and this refusal was challenged all the way up, with the High Court's Division Bench siding with the respondent based on an earlier Supreme Court ruling (Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar).
The Supreme Court disagreed with the reasoning of the earlier coordinate-bench decision (Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar) that terminal benefits and family pension are irrelevant to compassionate appointment claims, holding instead that indigence, genuine financial need, is the fundamental prerequisite for such appointments, since the scheme exists to relieve immediate financial distress, not to create hereditary employment rights. Since a proper larger-bench reference would cause further long delay, the Court proceeded to hold that the bank's refusal was justified given the family's financial circumstances, and set aside the High Court's judgments. However, invoking its special equitable power under Article 142 of the Constitution, it directed the bank to pay the respondent a lump sum of Rs. 2.5 lakh (in addition to Rs. 50,000 already paid) given the decades of litigation and false hope generated.
Compassionate appointment schemes exist to relieve genuine financial hardship after a breadwinner's death, not as an automatic entitlement. Courts will look at the family's actual financial condition (pension, terminal benefits) even where a scheme's language could support a different reading; but courts can still order fair monetary compensation using equitable powers when litigation has dragged on unreasonably.
