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, an IPS officer allocated to the Tamil Nadu cadre after the 2004 civil services exam, later claimed he should instead be reallocated to Rajasthan's "insider" vacancy, arguing that two candidates ranked above him in that year's merit list had declined that vacancy. He raised this claim only in 2010, six years after the original 2004 allocation, after one of those senior candidates, who had briefly won a tribunal order for the same vacancy, gave it up on being selected to the IAS. Both the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Delhi High Court rejected his claim, leading to this appeal.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant was never actually next in line for the Rajasthan "insider" vacancy. He was third in merit, and his theory that he should benefit once the first two declined was not a recognized basis for reallocation. It held that allowing such shifting years after an original cadre allocation would create endless chain reactions, since displacing one officer to a new cadre could open a claim for the next officer down the list, and so on indefinitely. The Court stressed that finality must attach to the cadre allocation process, and no evidence showed the disputed vacancy had even remained unfilled for the two decades since 2004.
Civil service cadre allocations, once finalized based on a given year's merit list, cannot be reopened years later by officers further down the list simply because higher-ranked candidates did not take up a particular vacancy: finality in postings prevents indefinite reshuffling.
