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 Labour Court had ordered reinstatement of retrenched workmen with 50% back wages. On challenge, a Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court found the industry had closed by the beginning of January 1995 and limited back wages to that date, since reinstatement in a closed industry was not possible. On intra-court appeal, a Division Bench, without any fresh evidence, instead extended the 50% back wages and related benefits up to January 1999, reasoning there wasn't enough proof of exactly when the factory stopped functioning.
The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench was wrong to overturn the Single Judge's factual finding on the closure date without any new material and without finding that finding "perverse": in an intra-court appeal, a mere difference of opinion on facts is not enough to disturb a Single Judge's finding. The Court noted that during the Supreme Court proceedings, the company itself had filed an affidavit confirming the industry became non-functional from the beginning of January 1995, which the workmen's side did not rebut. Accordingly, the order extending back wages/benefits beyond January 1995 was vacated, while the rest of the Division Bench's order (on reinstatement being replaced by compensation) was left undisturbed, with payment due within three months (plus 10% interest if delayed).
An appellate bench hearing an intra-court appeal cannot simply substitute its own view for a trial/single judge's factual findings unless it specifically finds those findings to be perverse or unsupported by evidence: a "better view" is not a valid ground to overturn a factual finding.
