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 1988 as a Diploma Engineer Trainee at Neyveli Lignite Corporation (a government company), having disclosed upfront that he could not produce an original Scheduled Tribe certificate and asking to be treated as a general-category candidate instead: a request the Corporation accepted at the time. Years later, in 1997, the Corporation disciplined him for allegedly submitting a false caste certificate, reducing his rank; then in 2010, thirteen years after that punishment, a higher authority invoked a review power under Rule 30 to cancel the original punishment and instead declare his entire appointment void ab initio. The Single Judge of the Madras High Court had set this 2010 order aside, but a Division Bench reversed that and reinstated it, leading to this appeal.
The Supreme Court held that Rule 30(3) of the applicable service rules barred any order enhancing a punishment more than 90 days after the original punishment order was served, and since the 2010 order came nearly 13 years after the 1997 punishment, it was time-barred and void on its face. The Court also found the entire action unreasonable and arbitrary given that the appellant had disclosed his inability to produce the original certificate from the outset and the Corporation itself had accepted treating him as a general candidate. It restored the Single Judge's order, set aside the Division Bench's ruling, and quashed the 2010 order that had declared the appointment void.
Disciplinary or punishment-enhancing action against an employee is subject to strict time limits under service rules, and an employer cannot revisit and escalate a decades-old punishment many years later, especially where the employee had been transparent about the underlying issue from the start.
