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 appellants were Section Officers in Manipur's Public Health Engineering Department who were eligible for promotion to the next-higher post of Assistant Engineer, a post meant to be filled 60% by promotion and 40% by direct recruitment under 2009 recruitment rules. They challenged a 2013 government letter initiating direct recruitment for 25 vacant Assistant Engineer posts, arguing the state's long-standing ban on direct recruitment (imposed in 1999 due to financial constraints) had not been validly lifted and that the authorities had miscalculated which vacancies belonged to which quota. The Manipur High Court had largely rejected their challenge, while clarifying that the state must recalculate the exact direct-recruitment quota before any appointment and gave the appellants liberty to come back to court if the quota was exceeded; the appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court, while a related group of officers separately appealed the High Court's refusal to grant them interim relief.
During the hearing, the State's counsel conceded that 16 vacancies remained available against the promotion quota and that the appellants, being high on the seniority list, would automatically be considered for promotion against those posts. In light of this concession, the Supreme Court declined to go into the broader legal question the appellants had raised about how the promotion-versus-direct-recruitment quota should be calculated, and instead disposed of the appeals by directing that the appellants' cases be considered for promotion against the available promotion-quota vacancies, while leaving the underlying question of law open for a future case.
In service-quota disputes, courts may resolve the practical relief sought (such as securing a promotion opportunity) based on a concession by the opposing party, without needing to settle the broader, more complex legal question of quota interpretation, which can remain open for a case where it is squarely necessary to decide it.
