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 was appointed in 1976 as a Junior Field Officer (JFO) in the Carpet Weaving Training Centre under the All India Handicrafts Board. In 1978 his post, along with other JFOs in the carpet scheme, was redesignated and downgraded to Carpet Training Officer (CTO). Separately, JFOs in a different (marketing) scheme were redesignated as Handicrafts Promotion Officers (HPOs) with better promotional prospects. The appellant argued he should also have been treated as an HPO and given the same promotion channel, since some similarly senior JFOs were promoted up to Regional Director.
The Court traced the entire chain of orders from 1976 to 2008 and found that the appellant belonged to the carpet scheme (redesignated as CTO), not the marketing scheme (redesignated as HPO): these were always two distinct cadres with different service rules. The appellant himself had never challenged the earlier tribunal orders that regularised him specifically as a CTO, not an HPO, and had accepted the benefits flowing from that status, including financial upgradation (MACP). Since the carpet scheme was closed in 2004 and CTOs became a surplus cadre, no further promotion was possible. The Court declined to treat the appellant as an HPO and dismissed the appeal, while noting he had already received the alternative financial upgradation benefit.
An employee who accepts a particular service classification and its associated benefits without formally challenging it at the time cannot, years later, claim entitlement to a different, more favourable cadre's benefits: timely legal challenges to service orders matter.
