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 took voluntary retirement from Oriental Bank of Commerce in 2001. In 2010, the Bank issued a circular giving certain past employees a fresh window to opt into a pension scheme, with a last date of 25.10.2010. The respondent, who was abroad at the time, learned of the circular only after returning on 18.11.2010 and applied late; the Bank rejected his application for missing the deadline. Both the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled in his favour, directing the Bank to accept his option anyway, prompting the Bank's appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the cut-off date in principle, agreeing that such deadlines are generally necessary for finality. However, given the respondent's long years of service and the genuinely exceptional circumstance of being abroad and unaware of the scheme, the Court declined to interfere with the High Court's direction to accept his late option. It made clear this relief was granted strictly on the unique facts of this case and explicitly stated it must not be treated as a precedent for other pending or future disputes involving this or other banks' pension schemes. The Bank was directed to process his pension (after he refunded his earlier provident fund payout with interest), with pension payable from the date of the Single Judge's 2015 order, without interest on the interim period.
Courts can grant relief in exceptional individual hardship cases even against a strict scheme deadline, but such relief is deliberately confined to the specific facts of that case and does not create a general right for others to bypass similar cut-off dates.
