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 appointed in 2003 as ad hoc District Judges to preside over specially-created Fast Track Courts in Andhra Pradesh. When the High Court later advertised regular District Judge posts, these ad hoc judges first sought automatic absorption into the regular cadre: a claim the Supreme Court had already rejected in an earlier case (Brij Mohan Lal). Following directions in that earlier judgment, the High Court held a fresh selection process in 2013, which the appellants cleared and were appointed as regular District Judges. Years later, after completing probation, they filed fresh litigation claiming their seniority in the regular cadre should be counted from their original 2003 ad hoc appointment, not from 2013.
The Supreme Court rejected the seniority claim, holding that the Fast Track Court appointments were explicitly ad hoc under separate special rules, conferred no right to any permanent cadre post, and were entirely distinct from the regular cadre of the Higher Judicial Service. Since the appellants were never part of the regular cadre before 2013, they could not claim seniority counted from an earlier date, and the Court reaffirmed that Article 14 does not permit claiming parity based on another municipality's possibly irregular appointment. However, relying on an earlier precedent (Mahesh Chandra Verma), the Court directed that the appellants' years of service as Fast Track Court Judges should still be counted for pension and other retirement benefits, even though it would not count for seniority in the regular cadre.
Time spent in a temporary or "ad hoc" government role under a special scheme does not automatically carry over as seniority if you are later separately selected into a permanent cadre, but courts may still recognise that service for other purposes, like pension, even while denying it for seniority.
