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 moreTwo government doctors in Maharashtra were both posted/transferred to Civil Surgeon, Jalgaon, by a single administrative transfer order dated 05.08.2017 that also moved 67 other doctors. Respondent No. 1 (then holding the Jalgaon post) was being moved out after an inquiry found prima facie financial irregularities and insubordination against him, with the appellant slated to take his place. Respondent No. 1 successfully challenged the transfer before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, and the High Court declined to interfere, leading to this appeal by the doctor who was supposed to take over the post.
The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal and High Court erred in relying on Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers Act, 2005, which prescribe a normal three-year tenure. The Court clarified that the word "ordinarily" in Section 4 permits transfers before completion of tenure where there are genuine administrative exigencies, and there is no absolute bar on early transfer. Given the substantiated complaint of financial irregularity and insubordination against Respondent No. 1, and his past record of not joining an earlier transfer posting for over five years, the Court found the transfer order justified and not an abuse of power. The appeal was allowed, the Tribunal and High Court orders were set aside, and the Court directed that if Respondent No. 1 did not join his new Mumbai posting within 15 days, the State Government should initiate disciplinary proceedings against him.
A government employee's "normal" three-year tenure in a post is not an absolute right: transfers made in good faith for genuine administrative reasons (such as substantiated misconduct findings) can lawfully occur earlier, and courts will only strike down a transfer order if it is shown to be driven by mala fide or extraneous motives.
