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 teacher was appointed as an L.T. Grade Assistant Teacher at an aided college in 1984-85 in a vacancy created by a colleague's promotion, but the college stopped his salary when his appointment was found not to follow the prescribed selection procedure. Over the next two decades the matter spawned a tangle of writ petitions and interim court orders, during which the teacher continued discharging duties and was eventually regularized by the Regional Level Committee in 2010 based on a departmental inquiry confirming continuous service since 1985. The college challenged this regularization, and after a single judge of the Allahabad High Court ruled against the teacher, a Division Bench reversed that and restored the regularization, prompting the college's appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the central factual question, whether the teacher had actually worked continuously from 1985 to 1995, the minimum period needed for regularization eligibility, was conclusively answered in his favour by a departmental inquiry and by the college's own written endorsements acknowledging his continuous service. The Court found the single judge had wrongly ignored an earlier High Court order directing that the teacher's regularization claim be considered on merits, and agreed that since the other teacher whose promotion created this vacancy was separately and validly regularized, there was no dispute that a genuine vacancy existed for this appointment too. Upholding the Division Bench's restoration of the regularization, the Supreme Court dismissed the college's appeal, by which time the teacher had already reached retirement age.
In long-running service disputes, a court will not disturb a regularization that is backed by an official departmental inquiry and the employer's own prior written admissions of continuous service, even if the employer later disputes the same facts to avoid financial liability.
