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 group of workers whose employment with the respondent company had allegedly ceased raised a grievance before the Labour Court, Vadodara, which the company resisted. The High Court had directed the workers, as a pre-condition for the Labour Court to even take up their reference for adjudication, to first deposit back the full amount they had already received at the time their employment ended (apparently under a VRS-type settlement). The workers' limited grievance before the Supreme Court was only against this deposit pre-condition, not the merits of the dispute itself.
The Supreme Court, after hearing senior counsel for both sides, found that the interests of justice would be better served by partly modifying the High Court's deposit condition rather than upholding it in full. It directed that the workers need only deposit 50% of the gross VRS amount received (excluding components like Provident Fund and Gratuity), within three months. The Court further directed the Labour Court, Vadodara to decide the underlying reference within three months from the date of that deposit, and disposed of the appeal on these terms with no order as to costs.
Courts can and do moderate harsh procedural pre-conditions (such as a full repayment demand) that would otherwise block a worker's access to adjudication, striking a balance between protecting the employer's interests and ensuring the worker's underlying dispute is actually heard on its merits.
