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 workman's termination by his employer, M/s SIEL Ltd., was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Meerut, which ruled in the workman's favour and ordered reinstatement with back wages, finding he had completed one year of continuous service as required under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The employer challenged this award in a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, which reversed the Tribunal and held that the workman had not actually completed one year of continuous service; the workman's review petition against that order was also dismissed. The workman then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that whether the workman had completed one year of continuous service was a pure question of fact, and since the High Court had examined the record in detail and reached its conclusion, the Supreme Court could not re-appreciate that evidence afresh under its appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, especially where the finding was not perverse or contrary to the evidence or law. The Court distinguished the precedent relied on by the workman's counsel as being different on facts. However, the Court upheld the High Court's related direction that any amount already paid to the workman under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act during the litigation (interim relief paid pending appeal) could not be recovered back by the employer, since Section 17-B proceedings are independent of the final outcome of the main case. The appeals were accordingly dismissed, but the workman kept the substantial interim amount already paid to him.
The Supreme Court will generally not re-examine a factual finding about an employee's length of service if the High Court has already gone into the record in detail and the finding is not perverse; separately, amounts paid to a workman as interim relief during litigation under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act are protected and cannot be clawed back by the employer even if the workman ultimately loses the case.
