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 1992, through open selection, as Director of the College Development Council (CDC) at a university in Uttarakhand, a post created under UGC guidelines that fixed its tenure at three years, extendable for one further three-year term. After he completed two full three-year terms, the University's Executive Council passed a resolution abolishing the CDC altogether; the appellant challenged this before the Uttarakhand High Court. The High Court quashed the University's resolution to the extent it abolished the CDC itself but held that the appellant, having already served two full terms, could not continue as its Director, leaving the Council to continue under someone else.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the three-year tenure cap in the UGC guidelines applied only to Directors appointed "on deputation," not to directly/permanently appointed Directors like himself. The Court rejected this reading of the guideline's wording, holding that the tenure limitation applied to every person appointed to the post regardless of whether they were on deputation, and that the advertisement under which the appellant himself was selected had expressly stated the post's tenure was three years. Since the appellant had admittedly already served two such terms, the Court agreed with the High Court that he could not continue as Director, and dismissed the appeal (and the connected contempt petition, which no longer survived once the appeal failed).
A tenure cap written into a post's governing rules or guidelines binds every holder of that post, not just those appointed on deputation, and courts will read such a limiting clause in the context of the appointment advertisement that put the appointee on notice of it.
