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 moreONGC had set up a voluntary, self-funded "Self Contributory, Post Retirement and Death in Service Benefits Scheme" for its employees in 1991, managed by an independent trust (not by ONGC itself), with ONGC contributing only a token Rs. 100 per year. A group of ONGC employees/claimants complained to consumer fora that they suffered losses because of delay in forwarding their claims to LIC under this scheme, and the National and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions ruled in their favour, ordering ONGC to pay compensation and costs on the basis that the employees were "consumers" of a service ONGC provided. ONGC appealed to the Supreme Court, while agreeing to pay the underlying claim amounts (since they were small and the employees were already retired) but contesting whether a consumer-service-provider relationship existed at all.
The Supreme Court held that there was no real contractual relationship between ONGC and the employees for provision of this particular service, because the scheme was voluntary, funded almost entirely by the employees themselves, and run independently by a trust with its own board, not by ONGC. Since the service, if any, was being rendered by the trust and not by ONGC, the Court found no consumer-service-provider relationship existed between the claimants and ONGC, and set aside the consumer fora's findings and costs on that specific legal point, while still directing ONGC to pay the underlying amounts as it had already agreed to do.
Consumer protection law requires a genuine service-provider relationship with the complained-of entity; an employer that merely facilitates or nominally supports an independently-run benefit scheme for its employees cannot automatically be treated as the "service provider" liable under the Consumer Protection Act.
