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 moreAn accountant was denied work after a change of management at a tea company in 2005, and the resulting industrial dispute went to a tribunal. The company failed to appear for several hearings, and the tribunal eventually passed an ex-parte award in the worker's favour, directing reinstatement with full back wages. The company, which said it only learned of the award after the 30-day window to seek recall had passed, challenged it on grounds that it was never properly served with the worker's written statement or given notice before the ex-parte hearing.
The Supreme Court held that the tribunal was wrong to treat itself as "functus officio" (having lost power to act) merely because the recall application came after 30 days, since the tribunal itself had already found that it never served the company with the written statement as required under Rule 20B(5) of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules. The Court clarified that while Rule 21 does not strictly require notice before proceeding ex-parte, the clear breach of the mandatory service requirement under Rule 20B(5) independently violated natural justice and justified the High Court's order setting aside the award and sending the matter back for a fresh hearing. Finding no error in the High Court's reasoning, the Supreme Court dismissed the worker's appeal, with each side bearing its own costs.
An award obtained without properly serving the other side with case papers can be set aside for breach of natural justice regardless of procedural deadlines for seeking recall, because a tribunal's duty to ensure fair notice to both parties is a mandatory legal requirement, not a mere formality.
