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 morePrahlad Raut, a Steward at AIIMS, was removed from service in January 2000 under a rule allowing removal on conviction in a criminal case, after AIIMS learnt (several years after the fact) that he had been convicted in 1993 for theft while under suspension on separate embezzlement charges. Raut challenged the removal order before the Central Administrative Tribunal only in 2013, roughly 13 years later, and the Tribunal set aside his removal, but the Delhi High Court reversed the Tribunal, holding the challenge was hopelessly time-barred. Raut then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the cause of action to challenge a termination/removal order arises when that order is passed, and that forfeiture of benefits through a punitive removal is not a "continuing wrong" that keeps the limitation clock running indefinitely. Since Raut waited about 13 years to challenge his removal without any sufficient cause for the delay, his Original Application before the Tribunal was rightly held time-barred by the High Court. The Court also declined to show sympathy on the facts, noting the conviction was not on a technicality and Raut had been receiving subsistence allowance throughout. It dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court's judgment.
Government/public-sector employees who wish to challenge a disciplinary removal order must act within the limitation period from the date of that order: an inordinately delayed challenge (here, 13 years) will not be entertained merely because the employee later feels aggrieved, since termination orders are not treated as a "continuing" cause of action.
