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 morePrithvi Singh, a daily-rated Security Guard at Kurukshetra University, was found guilty of misbehaving with a woman research scholar after a departmental enquiry, and his services were terminated in 2000. The State referred the matter to the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, which held the termination illegal and set it aside, a decision later upheld by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The University appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave; the respondent did not appear despite notice.
The Supreme Court held that both the Labour Court and the High Court had erred in law. The Labour Court should first have framed and decided a "preliminary issue" on whether the domestic enquiry was legally and properly conducted, and only if it found the enquiry defective should it have then given the employer a chance to prove the misconduct by leading fresh evidence. The Court also held that since the termination was imposed as a punishment following a disciplinary enquiry, it could never be treated as "retrenchment" under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, so the Labour Court's finding of "illegal retrenchment" was wrong. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment and the Labour Court's award were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Labour Court to decide the reference afresh, giving the University an opportunity to lead evidence on the misconduct charge.
A departmental/domestic enquiry's termination of an employee for misconduct is a dismissal "by way of punishment," not a "retrenchment": courts and tribunals must first test the fairness of the enquiry itself before deciding whether the employer can prove the charges independently.
