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, a Sorting Assistant in the Railway Mail Service, was suspended in 1979 after an FIR was registered against him for alleged forged money-order payments. His suspension was revoked in 1987 and he resumed duty, but he was later dismissed in 1997 following a criminal conviction. He was acquitted on appeal and sought reinstatement, which was initially refused and later granted in 2003 after the Tribunal intervened, but without back wages. The High Court partly allowed his claim, granting him back wages only from the date of his acquittal (2001) to his reinstatement (2003), and he challenged this before the Supreme Court, seeking wages for the entire period going back to 1979.
Relying on its earlier rulings in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore and Union of India v. Jaipal Singh, the Court held that an employee facing criminal prosecution is in a different position from one facing a departmental inquiry, and a later acquittal does not automatically entitle him to back wages for the period he was out of service due to the criminal case, unless the prosecution was shown to be malicious. However, the Court found that the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant had actually been dropped back in 1983, meaning there was no continuing basis for his suspension after that date; the department simply delayed reinstating him for four more years. The Court therefore held he was separately entitled to full wages for the entire suspension period from 1979 to 1987 (adjusted for subsistence allowance already paid), in addition to the back wages already granted by the High Court for 2001-2003.
An employee is not automatically entitled to back wages merely because he is later acquitted in a criminal case, but if the department itself drops or ends the underlying disciplinary proceedings, it cannot continue to withhold wages for the extra time it takes to formally reinstate the employee thereafter.
