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 respondent, a Junior Assistant in a Government Central Press since 1988, faced two separate disciplinary charge-sheets: one in 1995 for habitual unauthorized absence and related conduct, and a second in 1997 for tampering with the attendance register. He was eventually removed from service in December 1997 based on the second charge-sheet. He challenged this before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (later transferred to the Madras High Court), which held that an earlier appellate order (modifying punishment for the first charge-sheet) had already attained finality and that the authorities had no jurisdiction to again proceed against him, ordering his reinstatement with full back wages. This was upheld by a Division Bench of the High Court.
The Supreme Court held the High Court had erroneously conflated the two charge-sheets: the 1997 appellate order that became final related only to the first (1995) charge-sheet, not the second (1997) charge-sheet concerning record-tampering, so the disciplinary authority was legally entitled to independently punish the second, distinct misconduct. The order of reinstatement with back wages was therefore unsustainable. However, the Court also found that outright removal from service was too harsh a punishment for the proven misconduct, especially given 17 years had passed since the removal order. It substituted the order of removal with compulsory retirement, fixed from the date the respondent would have completed ten years of service (rather than from the original 1997 removal date), so he would not lose his proportionate terminal retirement benefits.
Two separate charge-sheets for distinct acts of misconduct can each attract independent disciplinary consequences, and a decision that finally disposes of one does not automatically protect an employee from action on the other; separately, courts retain the power to moderate a punishment that is disproportionately harsh to the proven misconduct, even while upholding the finding of guilt.
