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 moreParadeep Phosphates Limited, originally a joint venture between the Government of India and the Republic of Nauru and later a wholly government-owned PSU, raised its employees' retirement age from 58 to 60 in 1998 following a central government directive meant to help loss-making PSUs. In 2002, after the government divested most of its shareholding to a private company (Zuari), the company rolled the retirement age back down to 58 without giving employees a hearing or following the required notice procedure. The Industrial Tribunal and the Orissa High Court both held this unilateral rollback invalid, and the company appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that once the enhanced retirement age had been granted to employees, even temporarily, it became a "privilege" which could not be unilaterally withdrawn without following the mandatory notice-and-hearing procedure under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court reasoned that every employee has a reasonable expectation of being heard before an existing service benefit affecting their right to work is reduced, and that the company's financial-savings rationale did not excuse bypassing this statutory safeguard. Finding no error in the High Court's judgment, the Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the Tribunal's ruling in the employees' favour, leaving parties to bear their own costs.
An employer cannot unilaterally take away a service benefit or privilege already extended to employees (such as an enhanced retirement age) without following due process and giving them a fair opportunity to be heard, even if the change is framed as temporary or financially necessary.
