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 appellant, J. Linet, had worked for two and a half years in the additional post of "Messenger" alongside her regular duties at the Food Corporation of India, on the strength of an office order (Exhibit P2) allotting her this extra duty. The High Court had already found, in the impugned judgment, that she had in fact performed this additional work and directed the Corporation to consider paying her extra remuneration for it. The Corporation appealed to the Supreme Court, resisting payment by pointing to an earlier order of December 1995 rejecting her claim.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court's factual finding that the appellant had indeed worked as a Messenger for two and a half years had become final and was not open to challenge by the respondents at this stage. The Court was unpersuaded by the Corporation's reliance on the earlier rejection order. It disposed of the appeal by directing the respondents to pay the appellant the difference in wages for the two-and-a-half-year period during which she worked as a Messenger, after adjusting for emoluments she had already received as a casual worker, to be done within two months, with no order as to costs.
Once a court's factual finding on extra work actually performed becomes final and unchallenged, an employer cannot avoid paying the corresponding dues merely by pointing to an earlier internal rejection order.
