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 petitioner, appointed as a Lab In-charge at a college under B.N. Mandal University in 1978, had his absorption into government service allowed by a One Man Commission and later confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2017. After the Court's 2019 order in a related contempt petition directed payment of due arrears, the petitioner filed this fresh application alleging the arrears of salary and pension had still not been paid, and that his pension had since been put on hold because of separate proceedings concerning other absorbed employees.
The Court found that the questions of how much salary/arrears the petitioner was actually owed, and whether his pension could be withheld, both required a fact-finding inquiry that the Supreme Court itself was not the right forum to conduct. Rather than decide the merits, the Bench directed the University's Registrar/Vice Chancellor to hold a proper inquiry: the petitioner must submit his claim with supporting documents, the university must give him (and the college/State) a hearing and pass a reasoned order on salary and arrears within three months, and decide the pension claim (counting service from the date of absorption) uninfluenced by the orders that had frozen other employees' pensions, with payment following within two months. Any excess already paid could be recovered later through due process, and either side dissatisfied with the university's decision could approach the High Court.
Even after the Supreme Court confirms an employee's right to absorption and back-benefits, disputes over the exact quantum of arrears or pension are often sent back to the employer/authority for a fact-based inquiry rather than being decided directly by the Court: litigants should be prepared for this administrative follow-up stage even after apparently "winning" at the top court.
