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 were railway guards working in the Bhavnagar Division of Western Railway. When railway traffic dropped due to a gauge conversion, several of them were declared "surplus" and transferred to the newly-formed Ahmedabad Division in stages between 2003 and 2004. A dispute arose over how their seniority should be fixed in their new division, at the bottom of the "absorption grade" (their prior rank) or at the bottom of the "recruitment grade" (the entry-level rank), the latter being far less favourable to senior employees who had volunteered for transfer.
The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Gujarat High Court. It held that a Railway Board circular dated 26th June 2004 (which introduced paragraph 313A of the Railway Establishment Manual) validly applied to these transfers, since the seniority list was published only in November 2004, after the circular took effect, so the case was not a "closed case" exempt from the new rule. Under that rule and the Western Railway's own 1989 policy, employees who go to another division as surplus staff (whether compelled or by volunteering for transfer) must join at the bottom of the recruitment grade seniority list, not retain their higher standing from the sending division. The Court also held the appellants could not now revive an abandoned prayer for repatriation to their original division, since that prayer had not been pressed before the High Court.
When government/railway staff are redeployed as "surplus" to another department or division, seniority in the new posting is governed by the seniority rules in force when the new seniority list is actually finalised, not by the rules at the time of the initial transfer, and volunteering for a transfer does not entitle an employee to carry forward their higher seniority into the new unit.
