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 moreNinety NMR (non-muster-roll) workers of a hydro-electric project applied under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming they had been tricked into accepting a Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS): that is, they had signed papers believing they were applying for regularisation of their jobs, but these were instead treated as applications to voluntarily leave service for a payout. The Labour Court agreed, found the VSS was "thrust upon" them without proper notice, and ordered their reinstatement with 70% back-wages; the Orissa High Court upheld this award. The employer-corporation appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court went through the evidentiary record in detail and found the Labour Court's finding, that the workers did not know what they were signing, to be factually unsupportable and "perverse": documentary evidence showed the workers' own union had discussed and even sought to negotiate better VSS terms before the scheme was implemented, the workers had accepted and retained the monetary benefits paid under the scheme for months before complaining, and only one worker (out of 90) had ever written any letter suggesting he acted under a wrong impression. Applying the principle that a writ court need not mechanically quash an award merely because an illegality is found, but may decline relief where restoring the award would itself cause manifest injustice, the Court set aside both the High Court's judgment and the Labour Court's award, and dismissed the workers' application, while directing that amounts earlier deposited by some of the workers (to pursue interim relief during the case) be returned to them with 8% interest.
A claim that someone signed an agreement "without understanding" it will fail if the surrounding conduct, such as retaining and spending the money received under that agreement for months without objection, or the person's own representative body having negotiated its terms, shows they clearly knew what they were agreeing to; courts look at the whole conduct, not just a later claim of confusion.
