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 moreRespondent No.1 was appointed as a probationary Engineer at ARIES in 2008. During his probation, his employer flagged unsatisfactory performance and separately held a preliminary inquiry into alleged misconduct (improperly copying files from a pen-drive), but then chose not to pursue a full disciplinary inquiry and instead terminated him at the end of his probation through a plain, non-stigmatic order. Respondent No.1 challenged the termination, claiming it was really punishment for his having objected to a colleague's promotion, and the High Court agreed, setting aside the termination and ordering the employer to accommodate him. The employer (ARIES) appealed to the Supreme Court; Respondent No.1 also separately appealed the High Court's refusal to confirm him in the post.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court wrongly decided an appointment issue that Respondent No.1 had never actually challenged in his writ petition, and wrongly ignored documented warnings about his unsatisfactory work that predated his objection to the colleague's appointment. Relying on its earlier ruling in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U.P. State Agro Industries Corpn., the Court reiterated that a probationer's termination is "punitive" (and requires a hearing) only when misconduct findings from a completed inquiry form the actual foundation of the order; where, as here, a preliminary inquiry was merely used to decide whether to retain the employee and the employer chose not to press the misconduct charge, the termination remains a non-punitive "termination simpliciter" that casts no stigma. On that basis, it set aside the High Court's judgment and allowed ARIES's appeal, and for the same reasons dismissed Respondent No.1's connected appeal seeking confirmation in the post.
An employer can lawfully end a probationer's service with a plain, non-stigmatic termination order even after an internal inquiry flagged possible misconduct, so long as that inquiry's findings were not formally relied upon as the stated basis for the termination: the touchstone is whether misconduct is the order's actual "foundation," not merely its background "motive."
