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 moreHarinagar Sugar Mills Limited (Biscuit Division) had, for over three decades, exclusively manufactured biscuits for Britannia Industries Limited under a Job Work Agreement. When Britannia terminated that agreement in 2019, the company sought to close its unit and applied to the Maharashtra government for permission to do so under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A Deputy Secretary in the state government directed the company to revise and resubmit its closure application, rather than the matter being decided by the Minister concerned (the officer actually empowered to act as the "appropriate Government" under the Act). The Bombay High Court had upheld this handling, leading to the present appeal.
The Supreme Court held that the Deputy Secretary was not the "appropriate Government" competent to require the company to revise and resubmit its closure application: that power vested only in the Minister concerned, who never independently applied his mind to the merits of the case. Because there was no valid sub-delegation of authority in law, the Deputy Secretary's communication had no legal sanction, and the company was entitled to treat its closure as deemed to have been permitted through the statutory deeming fiction in Section 25-O(3). The appeals were allowed and the impugned judgment set aside. Recognising the hardship closure would cause to workmen, the Court also approved and enhanced a compensation package (raising the earlier offer from Rs. 10 crores to Rs. 15 crores, in addition to gratuity dues) to be paid to the affected employees within eight weeks.
Statutory powers reserved for a specific authority (like a Minister under labour law) cannot be exercised or effectively delegated to a subordinate officer without legal sanction: procedural lapses of this kind by government functionaries can render their orders void, even while courts remain mindful of protecting workers' livelihoods through compensation.
