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 appellants, long-serving RBI employees (many close to or past retirement) who had originally been appointed against posts reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates, were ordered terminated and made to return all service benefits by a 2018 Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) judgment, after it was found they did not actually belong to the Scheduled Tribe category. This followed an earlier, separate 2012 judgment of the same High Court in a related writ petition involving similarly placed employees, which had instead protected such employees' appointments by shifting them into the general category rather than terminating them, a position RBI had implemented through a 2013 circular. The 2018 High Court bench, however, did not account for this 2012 judgment or the RBI circular when it ordered outright termination and recovery of benefits.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court's 2018 order terminating the appellants was unjustified in light of the specific history of the litigation, since there was no finding that the appellants had committed any fraud in obtaining their caste certificates or employment, and in any event they would likely have qualified for some other backward-class reservation at the time of recruitment. Because the 2012 judgment protecting similarly situated employees had already been upheld by the Supreme Court (special leave and review petitions against it were dismissed) and operated effectively as a judgment binding on everyone in that class (not just the original parties), the Court held the appellants were entitled to the same protection. It modified the High Court's judgment: the appellants would be placed below the last general-category candidate as of 28 November 2000 and continue in service till retirement, with reserved-category benefits earned after that date to be surrendered/recovered, but with no recovery at all from those already retired, while directing the High Court to dispose of related contempt proceedings against RBI officers.
Employees cannot simply be terminated years into their careers over a caste-certificate dispute without the court considering the full history and any earlier binding judgment that already resolved how similarly placed employees should be treated; a fair middle path, reclassification and benefit adjustment rather than outright dismissal, and no clawback from those already retired, can be the proportionate remedy.
