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 moreDr. Samrat Sharma, an Assistant Professor at a private college affiliated to Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, was accused of using abusive language and behaving aggressively toward a colleague during a staff meeting. After an internal enquiry and a later supplementary charge-sheet (alleging insubordination and forgery-related complaints), the College's Managing Committee terminated his services within about ten days of the supplementary charges being framed. Dr. Sharma challenged the termination before the Uttarakhand High Court, which set aside the termination, ordered his reinstatement with back wages for his suspension period, and found both a lack of adequate opportunity to defend himself and insufficient evidence to support the charges. The College appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that while the High Court had overstepped its limited judicial review role by re-appreciating the sufficiency of evidence (courts can only interfere with disciplinary findings for a complete absence of evidence or a penalty that "shocks the conscience," not merely re-weigh evidence), the High Court's conclusion was nonetheless correct on an independent, narrower ground: the enquiry process itself violated the procedure mandated under the applicable University "First Statutes," since the supplementary charges were investigated and a termination order passed within just ten days, without adequate opportunity to defend. The Court therefore affirmed the setting aside of the termination and the entitlement to suspension-period salary, but permitted the College to conduct a fresh, procedurally proper enquiry into the same charges if it wished.
A disciplinary termination can be struck down for violating the mandated enquiry procedure (such as denying adequate time and opportunity to respond to charges) even where the underlying allegations might otherwise have merit, but this is different from courts re-weighing the evidence itself, which is outside their limited power of judicial review; and striking down a flawed enquiry does not bar the employer from holding a fresh, fair enquiry on the same charges.
