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 appellants were "Kurk Amins" (cooperative-dues recovery officials) in Uttar Pradesh whose status as government servants, entitled to pension and other benefits, had been settled by earlier Supreme Court and Allahabad High Court rulings dating back to 1985. When the State of Uttar Pradesh was bifurcated in 2000 and the appellants were absorbed into the new State of Uttarakhand, a dispute arose over whether their pre-2000 service in U.P. would count towards selection grade, promotion, and pension. A Single Judge of the Uttarakhand High Court ruled in the appellants' favour, but the Division Bench reversed this, holding that only service from 9 November 2000 (the date Uttarakhand was created) could be counted.
The Supreme Court held that the reorganisation of the State could not be used to wipe out the appellants' pre-2000 service, which had already been judicially recognised as government service. It held that denying credit for pre-2000 service "for no good reason" was against basic principles of service jurisprudence, and that employees should not lose accrued service benefits merely because of an administrative act (state bifurcation) over which they had no control. The Division Bench's order was set aside, the appeals were allowed, full past service was ordered to be counted for selection grade, promotional scale, and pensionary benefits, the benefit was extended to all similarly situated employees, and costs of Rs. 1,00,000 were imposed on the State of Uttarakhand for its untenable stance.
When a state is reorganised, employees transferred to the new state do not lose the benefit of service rendered before the split: prior judicially-settled rights (like being recognised as government servants) continue to apply, and courts will not let an administrative reorganisation erase accrued pension and promotion entitlements.
