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 moreA Commissioner of Income Tax was passed over for promotion to Chief Commissioner because, under the "very good" benchmark then in force, three of his five relevant Annual Confidential Reports graded him only "good." The Central Administrative Tribunal had ordered his case reconsidered since the "good" entries had never been communicated to him, but the Calcutta High Court set that order aside on writ petitions filed by the UPSC and Union of India. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held, relying on its own precedents (Dev Dutt v. Union of India, Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India, and Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India), that every entry in a public servant's ACR, good, fair, or otherwise, must be communicated to them within a reasonable time, and an uncommunicated adverse or lower entry cannot be used against them as it would be arbitrary and violate Article 14. Since the three "good" entries had never been communicated, they had to be excluded, leaving only the "very good" entries, which met the promotion benchmark. The Court set aside the High Court's order and directed the authorities to reconsider the appellant's promotion within three months based on the valid communicated reports, with consequential benefits and arrears if he was found entitled, while clarifying this would not disturb promotions already made to others.
A government employee cannot be denied a benefit like promotion based on a performance/confidential report entry that was never communicated to them: such uncommunicated entries, particularly adverse ones, must be disregarded as a matter of fairness and natural justice.
