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, a graduate engineer, was employed by Coal India's Dankuni Coal Complex (DCC) and later transferred, at his own request, to another Coal India subsidiary (CMPDIL) on personal grounds. Company policy provided that an employee transferred on personal request would lose his past seniority in the new company, starting fresh from the date of joining. A dispute arose over whether this policy also meant his earlier years of service at DCC could not be counted at all towards his eligibility for promotion in the new company: the High Court held that his DCC service should count for promotion eligibility (though not for seniority), and Coal India appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that seniority and eligibility for promotion are two distinct and different concepts, and that the company's policy on inter-company transfers only affected the employee's seniority position in the new company, not the length of service he had genuinely rendered at his previous posting. Relying on its own precedent (including V.M. Joseph), the Court held that service actually rendered at the earlier company, where the employee held a permanent post, must still be counted when assessing eligibility for promotion, even though the employee may rank at the bottom of the seniority list after a transfer made at his own request. Since the High Court had correctly drawn this distinction and granted the respondent a notional promotion date based on his actual service record, the Supreme Court found no fault with it and dismissed Coal India's appeals, with no order as to costs.
An employee's seniority ranking and their eligibility for promotion based on actual years of service are legally distinct matters: a transfer policy that resets seniority does not automatically erase genuine past service when calculating eligibility for the next promotion.
