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, working at the Heavy Alloy Penetrator Project, Trichy, was promoted to the post of Chargeman Grade-II under the 25% LDCE quota in 2000. A co-worker (respondent no. 4) was also selected under both the LDCE quota and the Direct Recruitment quota but chose to join as a direct recruit instead, and was consequently placed below the appellant in the seniority list as per the applicable rota-quota rule. Years later, the co-worker argued that the department should have advised him about how seniority would be fixed, and both the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Madras High Court agreed, ordering him placed above the appellant in seniority.
The Supreme Court reversed both the Tribunal and the High Court, holding they had committed a clear error. It held that it was the employee's own responsibility to know the applicable seniority rules, not the department's duty to advise him; since the co-worker had knowingly opted for and accepted appointment as a direct recruit rather than through the LDCE quota, he could not later claim the benefit of LDCE seniority. The Court restored the original seniority position placing the appellant (the actual LDCE promotee) above the direct recruit, and dismissed the co-worker's original application.
Government employees are expected to understand service rules governing seniority and promotion quotas themselves; a choice knowingly made between competing offers of appointment cannot later be undone by claiming the employer should have explained the consequences.
