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 ex-employees of government general insurance companies who had taken voluntary retirement under a 2004 Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme (SVRS-2004). They claimed they were also entitled to an additional notional benefit of five years of added service for pension calculation purposes, a benefit available under an earlier 1995 pension scheme. However, the SVRS-2004 Scheme itself expressly excluded this five-year notional benefit for anyone retiring under it. The employees relied on observations in an earlier Supreme Court judgment (in an unrelated pay-revision dispute) which they argued amounted to a concession that this benefit should apply to them too.
The Supreme Court held that the SVRS-2004 Scheme was statutory in character (framed under Section 17-A of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972) and had to be strictly followed as written, without importing beneficial terms from a different, earlier scheme. It found that the observations in the earlier judgment the employees relied upon were not a binding concession on this specific point, since that case had actually decided a different issue (retrospective pay revision), and a later review petition on the same point had already been dismissed. The Court held employees who voluntarily opt into a scheme's benefits package cannot then pick additional benefits from a different, more generous scheme. The appeals were dismissed, with each side bearing its own costs, though the Court clarified certain unrelated observations in the High Court's order.
An employee who voluntarily retires under a specific statutory scheme is bound by that scheme's own terms in full, and cannot later claim additional benefits available under a different, separate scheme that the one they opted into has expressly excluded.
