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 Syndicate Bank Law Officer, went on deputation to the Debt Recovery Tribunal/Appellate Tribunal for several years and, while still on deputation, was selected and appointed as Presiding Officer of a Debt Recovery Tribunal. He wrote to the Bank seeking permission to take over the new post but received no response for 11 months; he eventually joined the new post directly instead of formally returning to the Bank first. Years later, when he sought pension, the Bank denied it, treating his conduct as "willful abandonment of service" that forfeited his past years of service under its Pension Regulations.
The Supreme Court held that the Bank's stance was a "hyper-technical" and unsustainable reading of its own Pension Regulations. Since the appellant was on sanctioned deputation, had obtained a "No Objection Certificate" before applying, and had written seeking permission to join the new post (to which the Bank simply never responded for nearly a year), there was no genuine "interruption in service" as contemplated by the forfeiture clause. The Court quashed the Bank's orders, allowed the writ petition the appellant had originally filed, restored his pensionary entitlement, and additionally imposed Rs. 25,000 costs on the Bank for its unjustified stand.
An employer cannot forfeit an employee's pension or past service on a hyper-technical reading of service rules, especially where the employee acted in good faith, sought permission, and the employer's own prolonged silence contributed to the situation.
