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, an LIC employee, was found to have issued seven premium receipts to policyholders without actually collecting any premium money, and admitted to this in his departmental reply while pleading only work pressure and personal difficulties. A departmental enquiry found him guilty of wilful, mala fide misconduct, and LIC dismissed him from service in 1981. His challenge went through an Industrial Tribunal reference (which initially found the enquiry defective but, after fresh evidence, still found the charges not proved) and then a writ petition, culminating in a Calcutta High Court Division Bench ruling that set aside the Tribunal's award and restored his dismissal, which the employee then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, finding the misconduct charges proved both by the employee's own admission in his reply (he never denied issuing the receipts or not collecting the money, only citing personal pressures) and independently through the evidence LIC led before the Enquiry Officer and the Tribunal. The Court held that departmental proceedings had followed due process and natural justice, with the employee fully participating, and that an appellate court cannot re-appreciate the Enquiry Officer's factual findings or substitute its own view of the evidence. It emphasised that employees handling customers' money owe a higher standard of honesty and integrity, and that dismissal was a proportionate punishment given the seriousness and admitted nature of the misconduct. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, though the Court let the employee retain an earlier Rs. 50,000 ex-gratia interim payment he had already received.
Courts will not reopen factual findings of a fair departmental enquiry on appeal, and an employee who effectively admits the underlying facts of a financial misconduct charge (even while offering excuses) gives the employer a very strong, often unassailable, basis to dismiss, pleading personal hardship is not a legal defense to proven dishonesty with customers' money.
