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 worked as a Confidential Secretary at HSBC Bank for about 20 years until her post became redundant in 2005 when her superior left the bank. She was offered four alternative positions at the same pay scale but refused all of them and was also unwilling to accept the redundancy package, after which the bank terminated her services and paid compensation. She raised an industrial dispute seeking a much larger severance package; a tribunal initially ordered her reinstatement, but the Delhi High Court (both the Single Judge and Division Bench) held that her refusal of the alternative jobs amounted to "abandonment" of service, not illegal termination, though the Division Bench spared her from having to refund certain amounts already paid to her.
The Supreme Court upheld the finding that the appellant had voluntarily abandoned her service by refusing all four alternative positions offered on the same pay and terms, relying on precedent (Buckingham & Carnatic Co. v Venkatiah; Vijay S. Sathaye v Indian Airlines) holding that abandonment can be inferred from conduct showing an intention to abandon. Because she had abandoned service, she was not in "continuous service" under the Industrial Disputes Act, so the special retrenchment safeguards under Section 25F did not strictly apply to her (and in any case the bank had substantially complied with its notice and compensation requirements). The Court noted she had already received about Rs. 1.07 crore under various heads over the years, nearly double the Rs. 69.99 lakh severance she was claiming, and held that this amount should be treated as full and final settlement of all her claims. The civil appeals were accordingly dismissed, with the High Court's judgment modified only to confirm this final settlement, and no order as to costs.
An employee who refuses reasonable alternative employment offered on the same pay and terms, instead of accepting redeployment, risks being treated by courts as having voluntarily abandoned the job, which can take the employee outside the special legal protections available to someone who has been involuntarily terminated.
