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 moreA bank employees' union sent the government a panel of three names for nomination as the "Workman Director" on Bank of India's Board, but the government rejected the panel because all three nominees had less than three years of service left before retirement, as required by Clause 3(2)(iii) of the 1970 Scheme governing nationalised banks. The union refused to send fresh names and instead challenged the government's rejection letter in the Bombay High Court at Goa, also arguing that the eligibility rule discriminated against worker-category nominees since no similar rule applied to officer-category nominees. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, and the union appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the union's original relief had become infructuous because the nominated employees had since retired and other persons had already been appointed as Director in the interim. On the core legal question, the Court held that workmen and officers are distinct categories governed by different statutory schemes (workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, officers under separate service rules), so Article 14's equality guarantee, which applies only between equals, was not violated by prescribing different eligibility conditions for each category. The Court also rejected the argument that uniform qualifications should apply once a person becomes a Director, noting disqualifications must be assessed before, not after, appointment. Finding no merit, the appeal was dismissed and the High Court's order upholding the Scheme's validity was affirmed.
Courts will not strike down differing eligibility rules for different categories of employees as discriminatory unless the categories are genuinely comparable; the equality clause of the Constitution protects against unequal treatment of equals, not against different rules for genuinely different classes of people.
