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, an insurance company employee, was penalised in 2009 for unauthorised absence and later terminated in 2012 (just after he had already retired) following a second disciplinary proceeding where the chargesheet was never actually served on him. Courts eventually set aside both the 2009 punishment and the 2012 termination on technical/procedural grounds. The dispute before the Supreme Court was narrow: whether the employee was entitled to salary for the specific period from 14.05.2009 to 20.06.2012 (his retirement date), which the Allahabad High Court had ordered the company to pay.
The Supreme Court held that back wages do not flow "automatically" merely because a termination order is quashed: entitlement depends on whether the employee was actually prevented from working. Since the employee was not kept away from work by any effective order during this specific period (the termination order itself was passed after his retirement and was ineffective), the High Court erred in directly awarding salary for that period without proper adjudication. The Court set aside that specific direction and instead directed the insurance company to consider the respondent's back-wages claim for that period afresh and pass a reasoned decision within three months.
An employee cannot assume that having a dismissal or punishment order quashed automatically earns full back pay for every period of absence: the "no work, no pay" principle still requires a genuine assessment of why the employee did not work during a given stretch.
