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 moreThirty-one employees of IFCI Ltd. (a Government of India undertaking/NBFC, formerly the Industrial Finance Corporation of India) had availed of IFCI's Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 2008 and received all benefits due under that scheme at the time. Years later, after IFCI revised pay-scales for its continuing employees with retrospective effect, these retired employees claimed they too were entitled to an enhanced pension calculated on the basis of the new pay-scales. The Division Bench of the High Court had ruled in favour of the retired employees, prompting IFCI's appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that employees who voluntarily retire under a VRS settle their relationship with the employer on the terms of that scheme as they stood at the time, and cannot later claim the benefit of pay revisions made for employees who continued in service. The Court noted that the retired employees knew the terms of VRS-2008 when they opted for it, had already received all scheme benefits, and that pension for them had to be calculated based on their last salary before the date their service ended, not on a subsequent retrospective pay revision never meant to extend to them. It also noted the long delay before the claim was raised and found the claim to be, in the Court's words, a "misadventure." The High Court's order was set aside and IFCI's appeal was allowed, though the Court declined to impose costs given the respondents were largely pensioners.
Opting for a voluntary retirement scheme is treated as a full and final settlement on the scheme's own terms: an employee who takes VRS benefits generally cannot later claim the advantage of pay or pension revisions granted afterward to employees who remained in service.
