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 respondent, a daily-wage chowkidar, had his services "regularized" in 2001 under a government policy that required three years of continuous prior service, even though records showed he had worked barely six months and had not been in service for several years afterward. After other employees challenged the regularization list in the High Court, an inquiry revealed the respondent's name had been fraudulently interpolated into the final list by colluding officials, and the authority annulled his regularization and terminated him; the Industrial Tribunal upheld this, but the High Court's Single Judge and then a Division Bench ruled in the respondent's favour, holding he was entitled to a formal disciplinary inquiry before termination since he had become a "permanent employee."
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in applying precedents governing dismissal of regular government employees, because the respondent's "regularization" was void from the outset: it was procured through fraud and collusion, and an illegal appointment cannot be equated with a valid one regardless of how long it was allowed to stand. Since the respondent was never lawfully an "employee" holding a civil post, no disciplinary inquiry or Article 311 protection was required before terminating him, and the protections of the Industrial Disputes Act did not apply to an appointment that was void ab initio. The Court therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's orders, and upheld the original 2003 termination order, while letting the respondent keep the Rs. 25,000 costs already deposited by the authority.
A job regularization or appointment secured through fraud, forgery, or collusion with officials is void from the start and confers no employment rights: such a person cannot later claim the procedural protections (like a formal disciplinary inquiry) that genuine employees are entitled to before termination.
