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 Central Bank of India employee who had opted into the bank's pension scheme later took voluntary retirement in 2001 under the bank's Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2001. The bank rejected his claim for pro-rata pension, but the Rajasthan High Court's Single Judge and then its Division Bench both ruled in his favour, holding that a specific clause of the retirement scheme entitled him to pension under the 1995 Pension Regulations. The bank appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the High Court had misread the scheme and regulations.
The Supreme Court held itself bound by its own two-judge-bench precedent in Bank of Baroda vs. Ganpat Singh Deora, which interpreted a materially identical voluntary retirement scheme and pension regulation framework, and found that judgment directly applicable rather than a differently-worded scheme considered in a separate precedent relied on by the employee. The Court declined to refer the matter to a larger bench since both precedents concerned different regulations. It held that the High Court had incorrectly interpreted the Scheme and Regulations, and, despite sympathy for the fact that the employee had been waiting 18 years for a pension decision, ruled that statutory schemes must be applied uniformly and no exception could be carved out for one individual's circumstances. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgments were set aside, and the employee's writ petition was dismissed, with each side bearing its own costs.
Entitlement to retirement benefits under a voluntary retirement scheme depends strictly on the precise wording of that scheme and its governing regulations, and courts will apply settled precedent on materially identical scheme language uniformly, even where doing so causes hardship to an individual employee who has waited many years for a resolution.
