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 Uttarakhand Jal Nigam advertised posts of Junior Engineer in 2004, conducted a written test and interview, and issued appointment letters in batches between May and December 2005, with the seniority question deliberately left to be decided later. Candidates who ranked lower in merit but were appointed earlier (due to the staggered, category-wise issuance of orders) got a seniority list in their favour in 2014, which the Uttarakhand High Court upheld by ruling that seniority must follow date of appointment, not merit. The candidates who scored higher in merit but were appointed later then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that giving earlier appointment letters to lower-merit candidates was a mere "fortuitous circumstance" arising from the Nigam's own staggered, category-wise appointment process, and that Regulation 23 (seniority by date of appointment) must be read together with Regulation 20, which requires appointments to follow the merit list. The Court also held that the Government's 100-point reservation roster (circular dated 31 August 2001) was binding under Regulation 6 and had not been properly applied. It set aside both the High Court's judgment and the 2014 seniority list, and directed the Nigam to recast seniority strictly by merit, applying the correct reservation roster.
When seniority rules exist alongside merit-based and roster-based appointment rules, the date an appointment letter happens to be issued cannot override the governing regulations, all applicable service rules must be read together, and irregularities in how appointment letters were staggered cannot be used to "jump" seniority ahead of more meritorious candidates.
