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 Havildar in the Indian Army, completed his original 24-year tenure and was granted a two-year service extension. During this extended tenure, he suffered a stroke and was downgraded to a permanent low medical category with 80% disability, leading to his discharge. The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) granted him disability pension and, on review, allowed rounding off of his disability percentage from 80% to 100%. He separately sought Rs. 9,00,000 in ex-gratia compensation under a 2011 policy circular, which the AFT rejected on procedural, limitation, and merits grounds, prompting this appeal.
The Supreme Court examined the governing Pension Regulations and the 2011 ex-gratia policy circular and held that while the appellant was entitled to disability pension, because Regulation 173-A deems a person discharged on medical downgrading during extended service to be "invalidated" from service for pension purposes, this deeming fiction could not be extended to the separate ex-gratia compensation scheme. Ex-gratia compensation under the 2011 circular specifically required that a person be boarded out of service due to a disability or war injury attributable to or aggravated by military service, which was not the case here since his disability arose from a stroke unconnected to service, as the Release Medical Board itself had found. Since the appellant did not meet this threshold requirement, the Court held his claim for ex-gratia compensation could not be entertained and dismissed the appeal.
Different welfare schemes for armed forces personnel can have different eligibility conditions even when they deal with related issues, qualifying for disability pension under one regulation does not automatically mean a person also qualifies for a separate ex-gratia compensation scheme with its own distinct requirements.
