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 moreM.S. Kazi, an Assistant Teacher at a minority school run by the Muslim Education Society, was dismissed from service in 2004 after a departmental inquiry found he had gone on pilgrimage (Haj/Umrah) without sanctioned leave and had given inconsistent reasons in his provident-fund withdrawal and leave applications. The Gujarat Higher Secondary Education Tribunal rejected his challenge to the dismissal, and a Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court dismissed his subsequent writ petition on merits. When Kazi filed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA), a Division Bench dismissed it as not maintainable, relying on a Full Bench ruling that a writ petition under Articles 226/227 is not maintainable unless the tribunal whose order is challenged is made a party.
The Supreme Court held that a tribunal need only be impleaded as a necessary party in writ proceedings if it is legally required to defend its own order, and under the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972, the Education Tribunal merely adjudicates disputes between a school management and its staff and has no independent role to defend its orders; the real contest is between the employer and employee. Since the Tribunal was not a necessary party, the High Court had erred in holding the Letters Patent Appeal not maintainable for want of the Tribunal's impleadment. The Supreme Court therefore set aside the Division Bench's dismissal, restored the LPA before the High Court for disposal on its actual merits, urged expeditious disposal given the fourteen-year-old chargesheet, and expressly left all of the parties' substantive contentions on the dismissal itself open for the High Court to decide.
Not every adjudicating body whose decision is challenged in a writ petition needs to be made a formal party, only those that are legally obligated to defend their own orders; employees and litigants should not have procedurally sound appeals thrown out on a technical non-impleadment ground where the real dispute is between the two private/institutional parties themselves.
