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 moreAfter Uttar Pradesh was split to create Uttarakhand in 2000, several Personal Assistants who had been selected by the UP Public Service Commission but were appointed only in 2001 (after the cut-off "appointed day") opted to serve the new State of Uttarakhand and were allowed to join its Secretariat. Years later, other employees who had been transferred into the Uttarakhand Secretariat as stenographers challenged the seniority list, and the Uttarakhand High Court ultimately held that the appellants legally remained employees of Uttar Pradesh, not Uttarakhand, since the statutory reorganisation scheme did not cover them. The appellants challenged this before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had overlooked a 13 September 2000 Central Government guideline which contemplated that candidates selected (but not yet appointed) before reorganisation could still be allotted to the successor state. It noted that the appellants' own appointment letters expressly stated their services could be allotted to either UP or Uttarakhand, and that their transfer to Uttarakhand had taken place with the mutual consent of both state governments, consistent with a 2004 Central Government circular permitting such consensual transfers. Finding no legal infirmity in this consensual transfer process, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and allowed the appeals, holding the appellants to be validly absorbed as Uttarakhand employees.
When states are reorganised, an employee's final posting can validly follow a mutual inter-government transfer arrangement even if the formal statutory allocation scheme's cut-off date does not technically cover them: courts will look at the substance of consent and appointment-letter terms, not just the bare statutory cut-off.
