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 moreTwo teachers at the same private school, Madhavi and Chagan, both appointed around mid-1985, disputed who was senior and therefore entitled to be promoted as Head Master. Chagan argued he was senior because he was appointed to a regular post slightly earlier, while Madhavi had been appointed only temporarily at first. The High Court, in a review of an earlier dismissal, set aside the School Tribunal's order and effectively favoured Chagan's seniority claim, prompting Madhavi's appeal to the Supreme Court along with a related contempt petition.
The Supreme Court examined Maharashtra's private school service rules, which classify teachers into seniority categories based on qualifications held at the time of appointment. It found that Chagan did not hold a trained-graduate qualification when first appointed in 1985 and so was correctly placed in a lower seniority category at that time, only moving up later as he acquired further qualifications (B.Sc. and B.Ed.) over the years. Since Madhavi already held the higher qualifications at her appointment, the High Court had wrongly treated Chagan as senior from his initial appointment date. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, dismissed the underlying writ petition, allowed Madhavi's appeals, and dismissed the connected contempt petition.
In seniority disputes governed by service rules, an employee's category and ranking are generally fixed by the qualifications actually held on the date of appointment: later-acquired qualifications can upgrade a person's category going forward, but do not retroactively rewrite their seniority from day one.
