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 Tamil Nadu Electricity Board recruited Assistant Engineers (Electrical) both directly (in December 2000 and March 2001) and through internal promotion of existing staff (in May 2002). A dispute arose over whether the seniority of the direct recruits should count from their initial joining date (which included a training/probation period) or only from a later date once their training formalities were completed: internal selectees argued the latter, which would push the direct recruits below them in seniority. The Madras High Court's Division Bench had ruled in favour of the internal selectees, holding that direct recruits' seniority should effectively be reckoned only from 2002. Both the Electricity Board and the direct recruits appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court's judgment. Interpreting the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations (particularly the definitions of "duty" and "appointment" in Regulations 10(9) and 87), the Court held that a candidate is considered "on duty" and "appointed" from the very day they join and begin training or probation, not from when training concludes. Since the direct recruits joined and began their probation/training in December 2000 and March 2001, their seniority had to be counted from those dates, well ahead of the internal selectees who joined only in May 2002. The Court held the High Court had misapplied a later board proceeding (reducing training duration) to retroactively alter seniority computation, which the regulations did not support.
In government service, seniority ordinarily runs from the date an employee first reports for duty and commences training/probation, not from the date training formally ends, unless the specific service rules say otherwise. Internal administrative circulars cannot override the plain language of statutory service regulations.
