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 appellants, Junior Engineers deputed from All India Radio to the Department of Posts, voluntarily agreed to permanent absorption on specific written terms stating they would be treated as "new recruits" and that their past service would count for all purposes "except seniority in the cadre." Years later, when a seniority list was finalised against them, they challenged it before the Central Administrative Tribunal, arguing their deputation and prior service should count toward seniority; the Tribunal agreed, but the Delhi High Court reversed the Tribunal and upheld the terms of absorption.
The Supreme Court held that because the appellants had knowingly and voluntarily accepted the specific condition that their prior service would not count toward seniority (while being preserved for all other purposes), they could not later turn around and challenge that very condition, especially since they never challenged the absorption terms themselves, only the resulting seniority list, and any such challenge would in any event have been time-barred. The Court found the case squarely covered by its earlier ruling in Indu Shekhar Singh v. State of U.P., which held that employees who exercise an option to accept specific absorption conditions are bound by them. The appeals were dismissed, and connected contempt petitions/applications for directions were closed as a consequence.
An employee who voluntarily and knowingly accepts specific conditions attached to a transfer or absorption into a new department, such as forfeiting prior seniority, cannot later challenge those very conditions once the practical consequences (like an unfavourable seniority list) materialise.
