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' 24-year-old son died in a motor accident while working for his employer. The Employees' Compensation Commissioner awarded the parents compensation with interest, plus a 50% statutory penalty on the employer for delay in payment. On appeal by the insurer, the High Court reduced the compensation amount and cut the penalty to a flat Rs. 30,000, also shifting the entire penalty liability onto the employer alone. The parents-claimants appealed to the Supreme Court, not to challenge the reduced compensation, but specifically to contest the slashed penalty.
The Supreme Court agreed that under Section 4A of the Employees' Compensation Act, an insurer is never liable for the penalty portion, only the employer is, since the penalty punishes the employer's own default. However, it found the High Court had given no reasoning for cutting the penalty from 50% to a flat Rs. 30,000, especially since the Commissioner had made a specific factual finding that the employer paid nothing at all within the required time. The Court fixed a middle path, setting the penalty at 30% of the (reduced) compensation amount, directed the insurer to pay the claimants in full and then separately recover the penalty portion from the employer, and ordered the claimants to refund any amount they had received in excess of what was ultimately due.
An employer who fails to pay legally-due compensation on time faces a separate financial penalty that the insurance company cannot be made to bear, and appellate courts must give reasons before slashing such a penalty, not reduce it arbitrarily.
