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 Bank of India officer, was removed from service after an inquiry found procedural lapses in loans he sanctioned or recommended, which turned into bad loans causing a likely loss of about Rs. 70 lakh to the bank, all connected to one fraudulent borrower. Two other officers involved with the same fraudulent party, facing similar or even larger losses, were instead given the lesser punishment of compulsory retirement rather than removal. The appellant challenged his harsher punishment on the ground of parity, and his challenge having failed up to the disciplinary appellate stage, he approached the Supreme Court limited to the question of whether his punishment should be reduced to match the other two officers.
The Supreme Court held that while courts have very limited power to interfere with the quantum of departmental punishment, an exception exists where a co-delinquent employee facing identical or more serious charges was given a lesser punishment: the "doctrine of equality" then permits correction, provided there is complete parity in both the charges and the employees' conduct afterward. Examining the record, the Court found no real difference between the appellant's role and that of the two other officers (all three were tied to the same fraudulent borrower, and no dishonest intent was proved against any of them), and found the bank's stated reason for treating him more harshly, his pension option rather than provident fund, made no actual financial difference to the bank. Concluding there was no justifiable basis for the disparity, the Court allowed the appeal and converted the appellant's punishment from "removal from service" to "compulsory retirement," on par with the other two officers.
Courts will not normally second-guess the severity of a departmental punishment, but if an employee can show that colleagues with identical or worse misconduct received a lighter punishment with no real basis for the difference, that disparity can be corrected on the principle of equal treatment.
