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 moreThree related Jaipur entities, Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd. (BCCL) Jaipur, Times Publishing House Ltd. (TPHL) Jaipur, and Shree Vishal Printers Ltd. (SVPL) Jaipur (the appellant here), each claimed exemption from provident fund obligations as "newly set up" establishments under Section 16 of the Act. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner held that all three were not truly independent but were functionally part of the same parent organisation, BCCL Mumbai, and therefore not entitled to treat themselves as separate new establishments eligible for the infancy exemption. This finding was upheld through multiple forums, leading to the present consolidated appeals (including this one by SVPL) before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court applied the "functional integrality" and "unity of purpose" tests developed under the Industrial Disputes Act to determine whether an entity is truly a separate establishment, examining factors like common control, shared premises, BCCL Mumbai's managers signing documents on the other entities' behalf, financial dependence, and lack of true independent business operation. It found that despite SVPL being a legally separate company with its own directors and accounts, its printing arrangement and operational control were so intertwined with BCCL/TPHL that it failed this functional integrality test, and the infancy exemption could not be used as a device to evade statutory PF liability. The Court dismissed SVPL's appeal (along with TPHL's) with costs of Rs. 20,000, while noting the practical effect was a comparatively modest liability given the decades the matter had been litigated.
A company cannot escape employee provident fund obligations by structuring itself as a nominally separate "new" establishment when, in substance, its operations, control, and finances are functionally integrated with and dependent on a parent organisation: courts look at substance over form in such disputes.
