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 were appointed as Assistant Conservators of Forests (ACFs) in Bihar in 1988 and 1989, purportedly against a 1985 recruitment advertisement whose select list had, in fact, already been exhausted by earlier appointments. Their appointments were later found to be irregular, and after years of litigation and internal deliberation, the State regularised their service only with effect from 2005 rather than their original 1988 appointment date. When a final seniority list placed them at the very bottom, below officers appointed or promoted after them, they challenged this before the Patna High Court, which ruled against them, leading to this appeal.
The Supreme Court held that the appellants' original 1988 appointments were made beyond the number of posts actually advertised in 1985 and were therefore wholly illegal and not a "substantive appointment" under the applicable seniority rule (Rule 35 of the Bihar Forest Service Rules). Since seniority must be reckoned from the date of substantive, rules-compliant appointment, and the appellants only secured a lawful foothold in service when their appointments were regularised in 2005, the Court held they could not claim seniority from 1988. The appeals were dismissed and the High Court's judgment was affirmed.
An appointment obtained outside the sanctioned vacancies or in breach of recruitment rules, even if later regularised on humanitarian grounds after long service, does not entitle the appointee to seniority counted from the (irregular) starting date; seniority follows the date of a valid, rules-compliant appointment.
