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 challenged an interim order dated 21.07.2015 passed by the Bombay High Court in two pending writ petitions, by which the High Court had directed the Labour Court to decide the underlying dispute subject to the outcome of those writ petitions. By the time the matter reached the Supreme Court, the Labour Court had already rendered its decision, which was itself under further challenge before the High Court. The appellant's counsel argued that, pending final resolution, the respondent bank should at least be directed to pay the undisputed portion of the appellant's gratuity.
The Supreme Court held that the appeals challenging the interim order could be disposed of by directing the High Court to decide the pending writ petitions expeditiously (preferably within six months), rather than itself ruling on the merits of the underlying service dispute. As interim relief, the Court directed the respondent bank to disburse to the appellant the gratuity payable up to 15.10.1993 within two weeks, expressly noting that this payment was without prejudice to any contentions the bank might still raise. No order as to costs was made.
Even while a broader dispute remains pending in the High Court, the Supreme Court can step in to ensure a litigant is not denied an undisputed portion of statutory dues (like gratuity) while the larger legal question is sorted out: partial, practical relief need not wait for final adjudication of every issue.
