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 appellant, a cashier with the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), was found to have collected a policyholder's premium of Rs. 533 in August 1990 but not credited it to the policyholder's account until November 1990, and to have made a forged back-dated entry in the ledger to cover the delay. After a departmental enquiry found him guilty of temporary embezzlement and forgery, he was removed from service; a writ petition succeeded before a Single Judge, but a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court partly allowed LIC's appeal and substituted the removal with compulsory retirement (which, under LIC's pension rules, still forfeits past service and pension benefits).
The Supreme Court held the appellant's explanation for the delayed deposit unconvincing, noting that a cashier would not issue a receipt without counting the cash, and that a genuinely bona fide lapse would not have required a forged ledger entry, so the enquiry officer's finding of guilt was not against the evidence. On the question of punishment, the Court relied on a consistent line of its own precedent holding that in misappropriation/corruption cases it is the loss of institutional confidence, not the amount involved, that matters, and that courts should not show misplaced sympathy by reducing such punishments. Since the appellant had also been found guilty of an earlier, separate act of misconduct, the Court declined to interfere with the High Court's order and dismissed the appeal, with no order as to costs.
In disciplinary cases involving an employee's dishonesty (even an admittedly small amount of money), courts are reluctant to reduce the punishment on sympathy grounds: what matters legally is the breach of trust/loss of confidence, not the size of the sum misappropriated.
