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 transport contractor (Pratap Kundu) was engaged by the Food Corporation of India (FCI) to supply casual labour at its Bikna Depot, under a contract that gave him 471% above the scheduled rate for most items but, for the item covering casual labour wages, said rates would instead follow the outcome of a then-pending Supreme Court case. After the Supreme Court in 2010 fixed specific wage rates for the casual labourers (to be paid directly to them), the contractor nevertheless claimed he was entitled to be reimbursed at the higher 471% rate for those same wages, and also to a share of "profit" on the contract. The Calcutta High Court partly sided with him and sent the matter back to FCI's Chairman for recalculation, prompting cross-appeals by both FCI and the contractor to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that because the contract itself said casual-labour wage rates would "abide by the decision" of the pending Supreme Court case, the contractor was bound by the wage rates actually fixed by the Court in 2010, and could not additionally claim 471% above those rates, allowing that would result in unjust enrichment far beyond what he had even paid the labourers himself. The Court agreed with the High Court that the 2010 judgment did not leave open any separate "profit" entitlement for the contractor, and struck down that part of the High Court's direction. FCI's appeal was partly allowed (confirming wages must follow the 2010 Supreme Court rate and rejecting the profit claim, while remanding only the mechanical recalculation of exact differential amounts to the FCI Chairman), and the contractor's cross-appeal was dismissed.
When a commercial contract expressly makes a payment term conditional on the outcome of pending litigation, a party cannot later claim a more favourable rate under a different clause of the same contract once that litigation is decided: the specific, litigation-linked term governs.
