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 moreIn 1973, 321 employees of the Vacuvator Division of Kandla Port Trust (KPT) were taken over by the Food Corporation of India (FCI), with regular employees and work-charge employees given different service conditions. Following an industrial dispute, the Government in 1996 extended a transfer-related pay benefit (treating service as continuous from 1973) to only 15 of these employees who were regular staff; the remaining 306, mostly work-charge employees, were denied the same benefit. The Kandla Port Workers Union challenged this before the Gujarat High Court, winning before a Single Judge but losing on appeal before a Division Bench, and then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the Industrial Tribunal's award and the 1996 government order granting benefits were specifically limited to the 15 regular employees, and that a clear legal distinction existed between regular employees and work-charge employees under the 1973 office order that first transferred them to FCI. Even if work-charge employees had some independent claim regarding their provident-fund treatment, they could not, after having accepted employment on different terms since 1973, belatedly claim full parity with regular employees decades later in 1996. While disagreeing with one aspect of the High Court's reasoning (on whether the Tribunal had addressed the provident-fund question), the Court nonetheless held the Union was not entitled to the relief claimed and dismissed the appeals.
Employees transferred under different categories (e.g., regular versus work-charge) with distinct service conditions generally cannot later claim identical benefits simply because another category received an upgrade: parity claims must be grounded in actual similarity of status and terms, not just a shared original employer.
