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 appellant worked for a transport firm from 1994, handling accounts, tanker maintenance, and getting the firm's tankers released from police/court custody under a power of attorney, for which he was paid a monthly salary and bonus. In 2001, when he approached the firm for unpaid salary while unwell, he was terminated, even though workers junior to him kept their jobs; the firm never followed the mandatory retrenchment procedure under Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court ordered his reinstatement with 50% back wages, but the Allahabad High Court, exercising its supervisory writ jurisdiction, substituted that with a one-time compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs, holding the workman hadn't proven an employer-employee relationship and had not accounted for any gainful employment elsewhere during the gap.
The Supreme Court held the High Court had exceeded the limited scope of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227: a writ court cannot reappreciate evidence or overturn a Labour Court's factual findings unless there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record, and no such error existed here. On the merits, the Court found the evidence (the power of attorney, bonus payments, cash-book entries, and repair-work records) clearly established the appellant was indeed an employee, not a mere outside agent. It also held the firm had never even pleaded, let alone proved before the Labour Court, that its business had closed down, so that argument, raised only before the High Court, could not be entertained. Following settled law that reinstatement with full back wages is the normal remedy once a termination is found illegal (absent proof the employee found other work), the Court restored the Labour Court's award and went further, directing full back wages from the date of the Labour Court's award until actual reinstatement.
When an employer dismisses a worker without following the mandatory legal procedure for termination, the normal remedy is reinstatement with back wages: the employer bears the burden of proving the worker found other work or that the business genuinely closed, and cannot raise such claims for the first time on appeal without ever proving them before the original fact-finding court. A High Court's writ/supervisory powers do not allow it to re-decide factual findings already properly made by a Labour Court.
