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 public sector fertilizer company, facing financial difficulties, reduced the retirement age of its pre-1978 employees from 60 to 58 years on the Central Government's direction. Trade unions challenged this in writ petitions that were dismissed by the Kerala High Court and, ultimately, by the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court in 2004, settling the issue. Years later, the State Government referred essentially the same retirement-age question to the Labour Court at the unions' instance; the Labour Court held the reference barred by res judicata, but on a further writ petition, the Kerala High Court held res judicata did not apply and awarded the employees 30% back wages.
The Supreme Court held that the principle of res judicata (including constructive res judicata under Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code) applies to labour and industrial adjudications, as settled by its own earlier decisions. Since the retirement-age issue between the same parties had already been conclusively decided right up to the Supreme Court in the first round of litigation, the State Government had no jurisdiction to refer the identical question to the Labour Court again, and the Labour Court itself had no jurisdiction to re-decide it. The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the Labour Court's awards (which had ruled against the unions).
Once a dispute between the same parties on the same issue has been fully and finally decided by the courts, up to the Supreme Court, it cannot be revived by raising a fresh "industrial dispute" on the identical question; the principle of res judicata applies to labour adjudication just as it does to ordinary civil litigation.
