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 respondents were drivers employed by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, originally appointed in 1979 on a pay scale that would have classified them as "Group D" employees (retirement age 60). Their pay scale was later revised retrospectively to a higher scale in line with Second Pay Commission recommendations, and the Corporation's Board classified drivers as "Group C" employees (retirement age 58) from 1984-85 onward, paying them arrears accordingly. When the drivers were retired at 58, they challenged this before the Labour Court, which, and later the Allahabad High Court, held they should have retired at 60 as Group D employees.
The Supreme Court held that both the Labour Court and the High Court erred by ignoring that the drivers' pay scale had been revised retrospectively to the Group C level and that they had accepted and drawn arrears on that revised scale throughout their careers. Having taken the benefit of the higher, backdated pay scale, the drivers could not then claim the lower Group D classification only for the purpose of claiming a later retirement age. The Court found this evidence (produced in a rejoinder affidavit and service records) went uncontroverted by the respondents, and accordingly set aside the High Court's judgment, holding the Corporation had correctly retired the drivers at 58.
An employee cannot accept the benefits of a reclassification or pay revision (such as higher pay and arrears) and later argue they should be treated under the old, lower classification when it suits a different claim (like a later retirement age): the two positions are treated as inconsistent, and courts will hold the employee to the classification whose benefits they actually accepted.
