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, a registered educational society running 29 grant-aided schools/colleges in Nagpur, had engaged 16 part-time librarians with State Government approval and was told in writing by the State Education Department (1998 and 2004) that it need not deduct provident fund contributions for them. Years later, the EPF authorities (Respondent No. 1) demanded over Rs. 16.89 lakh in PF dues for these part-time staff, a demand upheld by the Appellate Tribunal and the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), prompting this appeal.
The Supreme Court held that because roughly 1,151 of the appellant's regular employees were already covered by the State Government's own Contributory Provident Fund Scheme for grant-aided private schools, the establishment was exempt under Section 16 of the Employees' Provident Funds Act (the Central Act) from the Central scheme altogether. The Court reasoned that a mere 16 part-time employees falling outside the State scheme could not strip the entire establishment of its exemption, so the EPF authorities had no legal power to proceed against it for recovery. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the entire recovery action under the Central Act was quashed, with no order as to costs.
When an employer's establishment is already validly exempted from a Central welfare scheme because its employees are covered by an equivalent State scheme, authorities cannot selectively target a small sub-group of employees to claw back dues under the Central law: the exemption attaches to the establishment as a whole.
