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 was employed as a Cashier at a Punjab National Bank branch in Jind, Punjab. In March 1984, he was found consuming liquor while on duty and, the same day, the bank discovered a shortage of Rs. 35,000 in the daily cash balance. A departmental enquiry was held on both charges, and the appellant was dismissed after the Enquiry Officer found both proved. A Labour Court initially set aside the dismissal, but the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed that award and restored the dismissal, prompting the employee's appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined the Labour Court's reasoning and found it legally unsustainable for several errors, but rather than remanding the case after a delay of more than a decade, it decided to examine the merits itself. On reviewing the enquiry record, the Court found no procedural defect: the appellant had been given full opportunity at every stage, never complained of prejudice before the Enquiry Officer, received all relevant documents, cross-examined the bank's witnesses, and led his own defence evidence. Both charges, consuming liquor on duty and being responsible for an unaccounted cash shortage as the cashier on duty, were held to be serious misconduct for a bank employee entrusted with cash handling. The Court concluded the punishment of dismissal was proportionate to the gravity of the charges and upheld it, agreeing with the High Court's ultimate conclusion though on its own independent reasoning. The appeal was dismissed.
Where a domestic/departmental enquiry has given an employee a genuinely fair opportunity to defend themselves and the charges proved are serious (such as intoxication on duty or an unexplained cash shortage for someone entrusted with handling money), courts will generally not interfere with a dismissal as disproportionate.
