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 joined Air India Ltd. as an Assistant Aircraft Engineer in 1992 and, after completing the minimum five-year service period required by his appointment terms, tendered his resignation on 1 September 2006 to take effect after the 30-day notice period, i.e., from 1 October 2006. He then joined Jet Airways. Air India, however, refused to treat the resignation as effective, informed him in 2008 that his resignation had "not been accepted" and asked him to report for duty, and withheld his provident fund, gratuity and other dues. His writ petition challenging this was dismissed by the Bombay High Court, leading to this appeal (along with a connected appeal raising the identical issue).
The Supreme Court examined the Certified Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 as applicable to Air India, and held that under the relevant Standing Order, an employee's resignation given with 30 days' notice (or pay in lieu) takes effect automatically on expiry of that notice period, without requiring the employer's acceptance: acceptance is only relevant where a shorter notice and payment of wages in lieu is involved. Distinguishing precedents cited by the respondent (such as Raj Kumar v. Union of India) as dealing with a different statutory/factual context requiring acceptance, the Court held Air India had no right to decline the resignation, allowed the appeal, quashed both the High Court's judgment and Air India's order declining to accept the resignation, and directed payment of provident fund (with interest) and gratuity/other benefits (with 6% annual interest) within three months. The connected appeal (Civil Appeal No. 10881 of 2018) was allowed in identical terms.
Where an employer's own certified standing orders specify that a resignation takes effect automatically after the stipulated notice period, the employer cannot indefinitely refuse to "accept" the resignation to keep the employment relationship alive against the employee's wishes, and withheld dues like provident fund and gratuity attract interest when unlawfully delayed.
