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 moreMangalam Publications, which runs a Malayalam newspaper with over 250 employees, paid its staff "interim relief" wages between 1996 and 2000 under a government wage-board notification, but did not pay the corresponding statutory contribution to the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) on that amount. ESIC demanded the unpaid contribution (about Rs. 2.58 lakh), but the company argued the interim relief was merely an "ex-gratia" payment, not "wages," relying on an unrelated government circular meant for public-sector staff. The ESI Court initially sided with ESIC, but the Kerala High Court later reversed that and ruled in the company's favour, prompting this appeal by ESIC.
The Supreme Court restored the ESI Court's view and set aside the High Court's judgment. It held that "wages" under Section 2(22) of the ESI Act is deliberately defined broadly, to be read generously in favour of the working class since the ESI Act is welfare legislation, and that the interim relief paid regularly to employees under the wage-board notification squarely fell within that definition: it was not within any of the narrow statutory exclusions (travel allowance, pension contributions, special expense reimbursements, or discharge gratuity). The Court found the High Court had wrongly relied on an office memorandum that applied only to central public-sector employees, not to a private company like the respondent, and that simply labelling a regular, contractual payment "ex-gratia" cannot strip it of its character as wages. ESIC was held entitled to recover the contribution as originally demanded.
Regular payments made to employees under a government wage notification, even if termed "interim relief" or "ex-gratia", generally count as wages for social-security contribution purposes if they are paid as part of the employment arrangement; employers cannot escape statutory welfare contributions merely by choosing a different label for the payment.
