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 appellant, an Army officer on tenure posting to the Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA), was not selected for permanent secondment to that organisation. His statutory complaint against this was rejected by the Ministry of Defence, and when he approached the Armed Forces Tribunal seeking to quash that rejection and direct his permanent secondment, the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction over the matter and returned his application.
The Supreme Court examined the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007's definition of "service matters," which covers matters relating to the conditions of service of persons subject to the Army, Navy and Air Force Acts. Relying on its own earlier rulings (Union of India vs Colonel G.S. Grewal and Mohammed Ansari vs Union of India), the Court held that the decision not to grant permanent secondment to DGQA, a separate organisation under the Ministry of Defence governed by its own office memoranda, not by the Army Act or Rules, did not affect the appellant's service conditions as an Army officer and therefore fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction. It also rejected his reliance on Sections 27 and 33 of the Army Act as inapplicable. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's refusal to entertain the case.
Not every grievance a serving armed-forces officer has is automatically a "service matter" before the Armed Forces Tribunal: if the decision being challenged was taken by a separate organisation under its own distinct rules (not the Army Act/Rules), the right forum may be the ordinary courts, not the Tribunal.
