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 appellants, wife and minor children of a worker named Ambadas Lahane who suffered a fatal chest pain at his workplace, sought compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The Labour Court awarded them compensation, holding the death occurred during employment; the employer's appeal succeeded before the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), which held that since the deceased was an "insured person" under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, his family's exclusive remedy lay there, not under the 1923 Act.
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court, relying on Section 53 of the ESI Act, which expressly bars an insured employee or his dependents from claiming compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act or any other law once the ESI Act applies, and on its own precedent (A. Trehan vs. Associated Electrical Agencies) confirming this bar even though ESI benefits are paid periodically rather than as a lump sum. Noting that the employer had, in the meantime, already deposited Rs. 4 lakhs that the family had withdrawn under an earlier interim order, the Court directed that this amount not be clawed back by deducting it from the family's periodical ESI payments, as a matter of fairness given the decade-long litigation. The appeal was otherwise dismissed, confirming that no separate compensation was payable under the 1923 Act.
A worker (or family) covered by the Employees' State Insurance Act cannot additionally claim compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act for the same injury or death: the ESI Act scheme operates as the exclusive remedy once it applies.
