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 moreA lecturer at a private unaided college affiliated to Chaudhary Charan Singh University was terminated a second time in 2017, after his first termination had already been set aside by the University's Vice-Chancellor in 2016 for lacking the Vice-Chancellor's mandatory prior approval under Section 35(2) of the UP State Universities Act, 1973. The High Court dismissed his challenge to the second termination, holding his writ petition was not maintainable against a private unaided college. The college management argued it was a purely private "master-servant" relationship not subject to writ jurisdiction, relying on an old Supreme Court ruling under a different, since-repealed university statute.
The Supreme Court held the High Court's order was "cryptic, non-speaking" and ignored that the college, being affiliated to the University, was bound by the Act's statutory service-condition safeguards, including the requirement that any dismissal be approved by the Vice-Chancellor before it takes effect. Having accepted and acted on the Vice-Chancellor's 2016 order (which required fresh approval before any fresh termination), the college could not now claim it was free to ignore that requirement; the 2017 termination, made without such approval, was therefore unsustainable. The Court also firmly rejected the management counsel's reliance on a judgment interpreting an entirely different, repealed statute, and used the occasion to strongly reiterate lawyers' professional duty to research correctly and never mislead the court. It set aside the termination, ordered the appellant's reinstatement, while leaving it open to the management to restart proper disciplinary proceedings from the stage of the defect, with back wages to depend on the outcome.
Where a statute makes a specific procedural safeguard (like prior Vice-Chancellor approval) mandatory before an employee can be dismissed, failing to follow it makes the termination invalid regardless of any underlying misconduct allegations, and employers cannot selectively accept the favourable part of an earlier order while ignoring the conditions attached to it.
