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 moreThis case (along with two connected appeals) was referred to a larger bench to resolve conflicting Supreme Court precedent on whether a Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal becomes "functus officio" (loses all power to act) once an award becomes enforceable 30 days after pronouncement: specifically, whether it can still entertain an application to set aside an ex parte award filed after that period. The underlying dispute was a management-side challenge to an ex parte award passed in favour of workmen.
The Court held that a Labour Court/Tribunal is not functus officio merely because an award has become enforceable, and retains the power to set aside an ex parte award if sufficient cause for non-appearance is shown within a reasonable time, since the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is welfare legislation and courts must be able to do justice via ancillary or inherent powers. Having settled this legal question, the Court disposed of the appeals by remitting the awards to the Labour Court to decide whether there was sufficient cause for the management's non-appearance, while directing the appellants to make a provisional payment of Rs. 1,00,000 to the workmen in each case (subject to adjustment based on the final outcome).
A Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal does not permanently lose jurisdiction over its own ex parte award just because the award has become enforceable: a party with genuine, timely cause for having missed a hearing can still ask that court to reconsider, because labour law is designed to protect fair process, not just finality.
