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 was a daily-wage worker with the PWD (B&R) in Karnal, Haryana, from January to December 1993. His service was terminated on 31.12.1993 without notice, notice pay, or retrenchment compensation, and without following the "last come, first go" rule required for retrenchment. An Industrial Tribunal found he had worked more than 240 days in the preceding calendar year (a legal threshold that triggers retrenchment protections) and set aside the termination, ordering reinstatement with back wages. The Punjab and Haryana High Court's Single Judge, and then a Division Bench, reversed that finding and upheld the termination.
The Supreme Court held that the Industrial Tribunal's factual finding, that the workman had completed over 240 days of continuous service, based on muster-roll evidence that the employer never genuinely disputed, was well-supported and should not have been disturbed by the High Court exercising its limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Court reiterated that industrial welfare legislation must be read purposively in favour of protecting workers' livelihoods, and that a termination made without complying with Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act (notice, retrenchment compensation, and seniority-based retrenchment) is void from the outset. Because the termination was void ab initio, the workman was entitled to full back wages, not just reinstatement, following the principle that denying back wages to an illegally terminated employee effectively rewards the employer for its illegal act.
A daily-wage or contract worker who has completed 240 days of continuous service in a year gains statutory protection against termination without notice, compensation, and adherence to seniority, and courts reviewing such disputes under writ jurisdiction should not casually overturn a labour court's factual findings made on the evidence.
