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 moreMaharaj Singh, a Reader in the Psychology Department of Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut, took leave without pay (Extraordinary Leave) starting in 2000 but never returned to duty despite repeated correspondence from the University, eventually seeking further leave extensions and even a promotion while, on the record, being untraceable and possibly abroad. In 2007, the University's Executive Council terminated his services for abandoning his post without holding a full disciplinary enquiry. Singh challenged this years later, in 2009, while reportedly in the United States, and the Allahabad High Court set aside his termination on the ground that the University had not followed proper procedure or held an enquiry.
The Supreme Court noted that even if the University's termination process was procedurally flawed, the correct remedy would ordinarily have been to send the matter back to the University to redo the process properly, not to simply reinstate an employee who had evidently abandoned his job and never even appeared before the courts to defend himself. The Court observed that Singh had not proven he did not take up employment abroad during his absence, and that he had already been paid his provident fund dues. Balancing these facts, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment that had reinstated him, but as a protective measure directed that the provident fund amount already paid to him need not be recovered, and closed related contempt proceedings.
Courts will not automatically reinstate an employee just because their employer's disciplinary process had procedural gaps. Where the employee's own long, unexplained absence and refusal to even contest the case in person is evident, the balance of justice may still favour the employer, though any past payments already made to the employee are typically left undisturbed.
