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 appointed as a clerk in the State Bank of India, confirmed after probation in 1979, but from January to December 1998 he remained absent without leave and, despite notices asking him to explain, was declared by the Bank in 2008 to have voluntarily retired/abandoned service as of 12.12.1998. He sought pension benefits, first through a writ petition, then a claim before the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act (dismissed for lack of jurisdiction), and again through writ proceedings, all of which went against him, with the Madras High Court's Division Bench finally dismissing his appeal in 2022, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the appellant's claim failed on two independent grounds. First, calculating his actual pensionable service (counted from confirmation, per Rule 20 read with Rule 7 of the SBI Employees' Pension Fund Rules), he had rendered only about 19 years 9 months and 25 days: short of the 20 years required under either Rule 22(i)(a) or 22(i)(c). Second, and more fundamentally, his case was not one of voluntary retirement at all but of voluntary abandonment of service after unauthorised absence, so Rule 22(i)(c) (applicable to genuine voluntary retirement regardless of age) did not apply; and since he had also not attained 50 years of age, he could not qualify under Rule 22(i)(a) either. The Court distinguished the precedents the appellant relied on (Radhey Shyam Pandey and Rugmini Ganesh), noting those cases involved employees whose entitlement to pension was undisputed, unlike here where entitlement itself was in question. The appeal was dismissed.
Pension rules typically require both a minimum period of qualifying service and, depending on the specific rule invoked, a minimum age or a genuine act of voluntary retirement: an employee whose service ends through unauthorised absence/abandonment (rather than a formal voluntary retirement) cannot claim the more favourable "any age, 20 years' service" route, and precedents about pension computation only help where the underlying entitlement to pension is not itself in dispute.
