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 moreKailash Singh and Jeffry Jobard were long-serving staff at the prestigious, unaided Mayo College, Ajmer. In 2000, both were active in an employee association demanding a bonus and led protests that disrupted the college's Annual Function, prompting the Board of Governors to unanimously terminate their services. The termination was procedurally defective because the management failed to obtain the Director of Education's written consent as required under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989. Years of litigation through the Educational Tribunal and the Rajasthan High Court culminated in the High Court's Division Bench awarding both employees compensation (five years' back-wages plus retiral benefits) instead of reinstatement, which the employees then challenged before the Supreme Court as inadequate, while one of them also sought reinstatement itself.
The Supreme Court held that because Mayo College is a private, unaided institution, the relationship between it and its staff is essentially contractual, and under long-settled master-servant principles (citing Sirsi Municipality v. Cecelia Kom Francis Tellis and Vidya Ram Misra v. Managing Committee, Shri Jai Narain College) a wrongfully terminated employee in a purely contractual relationship cannot get specific performance/reinstatement, only damages. Since the employees' own conduct had justifiably eroded the management's confidence, and only a technical procedural lapse (missing Director of Education consent) caused the termination to fail, reinstatement was not appropriate, but compensation was due for that technical illegality. The Court recalculated the compensation basis (using actual year-wise pay rather than only the last-drawn salary) and enhanced the back-wages period from five to eight years, fixing all-inclusive compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs for Kailash Singh and Rs. 18 lakhs for Jeffry Jobard (adjusted for amounts already paid), and directed both employees to vacate college-provided housing within a month of payment.
Employees of purely private, unaided institutions are generally in a contractual master-servant relationship, so even a procedurally defective dismissal (e.g., skipping a mandatory statutory consent) usually results in monetary compensation rather than a right to reinstatement, especially where the employee's own conduct justified the loss of confidence.
