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, an officer with a public sector insurance company, was denied promotion from Scale III to Scale IV in the 2014-15 promotion exercise. He contended that his Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) entries for 2010-11 ("C" grade) and 2011-12 ("B" grade) had never been communicated to him, depriving him of the chance to represent against them, contrary to Supreme Court precedent requiring every APAR entry to be disclosed. The Allahabad High Court had dismissed his writ petition and review petition, holding that absent an adverse or below-benchmark entry, non-communication caused no actionable grievance, leading to this appeal.
The Supreme Court held that its earlier rulings in Dev Dutt v. Union of India and Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India unequivocally required every appraisal entry, good, average, or poor, to be communicated to the employee within a reasonable time, and that this obligation was not limited to adverse entries alone or to the year from which the employer chose to start complying. Since the appellant's lower "B" grading for 2011-12 could have materially affected his marks in the promotion exercise, and he was never given a chance to represent against it, the Court found a legitimate grievance, even though the appellant had since been promoted in 2018 after the relevant exercise closed. It set aside the High Court's judgments and directed the insurance company to communicate the previously undisclosed entries, allow the appellant to make representations, have them considered within set timelines by a sufficiently senior authority, and decide whether any modification to the 2014-15 promotion decision was warranted.
A public sector employer must communicate every entry in an employee's performance appraisal, not only negative ones, because undisclosed entries can silently affect promotion decisions: an employee has a right to know and respond to all appraisal gradings that are used against them.
