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 moreShree Lal Meena, an LIC employee, resigned from service in 1990 citing his and his wife's poor health, at a time when LIC had no voluntary retirement scheme at all. More than five years later, in 1995, LIC introduced a Pension Rules scheme with retrospective effect from 1 November 1993, extending pension benefits to employees who had "retired" (not "resigned") between 1 January 1986 and 1 November 1993. Meena claimed he should get this pension too, arguing his resignation was effectively an attempted voluntary retirement. LIC rejected this, but Meena won before a Single Judge and then a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court. Because of conflicting past Supreme Court rulings on similar facts involving other employees (of United India Insurance and Andhra Bank, whose connected appeals were heard together), a two-judge bench referred the question to a larger bench, which decided this case along with the connected matters.
The Court held that "resignation" and "retirement" (including voluntary retirement) are legally distinct concepts in service law, and the Pension Rules deliberately used both terms in different places, meaning the drafters did not intend to treat them as interchangeable. Critically, the very Rules Meena invoked also stated that resignation "shall entail forfeiture of entire past service" and disqualify an employee from pension, so even if the Rules were read as applying to him, he would still be excluded by their own forfeiture clause. The Court also noted he could not retroactively relabel a 1990 resignation (made under rules that had no voluntary-retirement option at all) as if it were made under a scheme introduced five years later. Applying this reasoning, the Court allowed LIC's appeal and dismissed Meena's original claim, while also dismissing the two connected appeals (concerning a United India Insurance employee and a group of Andhra Bank employees) on the same reasoning. It clarified that interim payments already made to Meena during the litigation would not need to be refunded.
Resigning from a job and later retiring under a scheme are treated as legally different events: an employee who resigns before a new pension scheme exists generally cannot claim its benefits later just because the scheme was eventually made retrospective, especially where the scheme itself treats resignation as disqualifying.
