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 appellants, employees of the Assam Power Generation Corporation, attained the age of superannuation (60 years) in March 2016 but, under Fundamental Rule 56(a), their retirement date was extended to 31.03.2016: the last day of that month. A pay revision, the "Assam State Electricity Board and its Successor Companies Revised Pay Rules, 2017," applied to employees "in service on 31.03.2016." The employer denied them the revised pay/pension, arguing they had effectively retired earlier and the revision only benefited those continuing in service on or after 01.04.2016. A Single Judge ruled in the employees' favour, but a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court reversed this, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that FR 56(a) is not merely a technical extension for pay and allowances alone: an employee attaining superannuation age during a month legally continues in service until the last day of that month. Relying on Rule 5(2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and a three-judge bench precedent (S. Banerjee v. Union of India), the Court held the appellants were genuinely "in service" on 31.03.2016 and thus squarely covered by the 2017 Rules. The Court declined to follow an earlier two-judge decision (K.J. George) that had taken a contrary, narrower view, distinguishing it on facts and citing the unnoticed three-judge precedent. The Division Bench's judgment was set aside and the Single Judge's order restored.
When a retirement rule extends an employee's service to the last day of the month in which they turn the qualifying age, that employee is legally treated as being "in service" on that date for all purposes, including entitlement to benefits like pay revisions, not merely for computing salary.
