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 respondent, a Deputy Registrar (Accounts)/Registrar at a technical institute (later National Institute of Technology, Silchar), was dismissed from service in 1996 after an audit found serious financial and administrative irregularities, including misappropriation of institutional funds. His dismissal order was issued by the Principal & Secretary rather than the Board of Governors (BOG), which under the institute's rules was the actual competent authority. The Gauhati High Court had set aside the dismissal on the ground that it was passed by an authority lacking the power to do so.
The Supreme Court examined minutes showing that the BOG, in its meeting on 22.08.1996, had expressly approved and ratified the Principal & Secretary's earlier action dismissing the respondent. Applying the legal doctrine of ratification, that a subsequent approval by a person/body with the power to act relates back to and validates an earlier unauthorized act, the Court held that even assuming the Principal & Secretary originally lacked authority, the BOG's ratification cured the defect retrospectively from the date of dismissal. It therefore disagreed with the High Court, upheld the dismissal as legal and proper, allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and dismissed the respondent's original writ petition.
An administrative or disciplinary action taken by an officer who did not originally have the authority to take it can still become legally valid, retrospectively, if the body that actually holds that power later ratifies/approves the action.
