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 respondent, employed by Pepsico as a Fleet Executive, was terminated from service in 2003 after a dispute with the company. He claimed he was a "workman" under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that his termination was illegal; the company said his duties were supervisory/managerial, taking him outside the Act's protection. The Industrial Tribunal, after recording detailed evidence, held he was not a "workman" and dismissed his claim.
The Allahabad High Court had reversed the Tribunal's factual finding, reclassified the respondent as a "workman," and even directed the government to consider amending the statutory definition. The Supreme Court held this was a serious overreach: under Articles 226/227, a High Court cannot act as an appellate court and re-weigh evidence to overturn a Tribunal's factual findings, nor can it direct the legislature/executive on how to amend a law. Since the Tribunal's finding that the respondent's work was managerial/supervisory in nature was based on proper appreciation of evidence, the Supreme Court restored the Tribunal's award, while leaving the respondent free to challenge his termination through the appropriate forum.
A High Court exercising writ/supervisory jurisdiction cannot re-examine evidence and overturn a labour tribunal's factual findings as if sitting in appeal: its power is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or patent illegality, not to substituting its own view of the facts.
