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 company, covered under the Employees' State Insurance (ESI) Act, was assessed by the Regional ESI Office as owing Rs. 5,42,575.53 in arrears of contribution for the period August 1988 to March 1992, with interest, under Section 45A of the Act (which allows the ESI Corporation to determine dues on the basis of "best judgment" where an employer fails to furnish records). This order was upheld by the Employees Insurance Court and by the Madras High Court, prompting the company's appeal.
The Supreme Court held that Section 45A can only be invoked where an employer genuinely fails to produce records or obstructs inspection. It is not meant to be used merely because the Corporation finds verifying the records inconvenient or time-consuming. On the facts, the Court found the appellant company was never obstructive: it had furnished ledgers, cash books, vouchers and returns, and had attended personal hearings repeatedly; the actual grievance was that the records were "inadequate," not that they were withheld. In such a situation, the Court held, the proper statutory route for the Corporation was to examine the correctness of the produced records under Section 75 of the Act, and if a dispute persisted, to initiate proceedings within the limitation period prescribed under Section 77(1A)(b), not to invoke Section 45A. Holding the invocation of Section 45A to be a jurisdictional error, the Court set aside the original 2000 assessment order, the Employees Insurance Court's 2015 order, and the Madras High Court's 2023 judgment, and allowed the appeal.
Statutory "best judgment" or summary-assessment powers (like Section 45A of the ESI Act) are an exception meant for genuine non-cooperation or non-production of records: a government authority cannot bypass an employer's normal right to have disputes over the adequacy of its records examined through the regular statutory dispute-resolution route (like Section 75) just because that route is slower or more inconvenient for the authority.
