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 respondent worked as a daily-wage Peon-cum-Driver for the Panchayat Department (Gujarat) between 1989 and 1992, after which his services were discontinued. He challenged the termination both through a civil suit and through an industrial reference before the Labour Court. The Labour Court ruled in his favour in 2006, finding the termination illegal for want of retrenchment compensation and for violating Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, and ordered reinstatement with consequential benefits; the Gujarat High Court (Single Judge and Division Bench) upheld this, leading the State to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court agreed that the termination was illegal but held that reinstatement with back wages is not automatic where the illegality stems from a procedural defect (non-payment of retrenchment compensation under Section 25-F), rather than mala fide action or unfair labour practice. Relying on its earlier ruling in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., the Court held that since the worker could never have claimed regularisation even after reinstatement, monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement better serves the ends of justice. The Court modified the Labour Court's award, replacing reinstatement and back wages with a lump-sum payment of Rs. 2,50,000 to be paid within three months (with 9% interest thereafter if delayed), and allowed the appeals in part on that basis.
A daily-wage worker whose termination is found illegal only on a procedural ground (such as non-payment of retrenchment compensation) is not automatically entitled to reinstatement: courts may instead award monetary compensation, especially where the worker could never have claimed permanent regularisation in any event.
