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 appellant, a clerk-cum-machine operator, was dismissed from his job by his employer after a departmental enquiry on charges of misconduct. The employer sought the Industrial Tribunal's approval for the dismissal, which under law required paying the worker one month's full wages along with the dismissal order; the worker contested the approval, arguing he was shorted Rs. 110 of his dues, so the statutory pre-condition for approval was never fulfilled. The dispute travelled through the Industrial Tribunal, the Allahabad High Court, and ultimately reached the Supreme Court on the narrow question of whether that Rs. 110 (paid once as an ex-gratia "interim relief") counted as part of his "wages."
The Supreme Court held that a one-time, isolated ex-gratia payment that is not made regularly as part of the terms of employment does not qualify as "wages" under Section 2(y) of the Act, relying on its own precedent that ex-gratia payments are not part of a contract of employment. It found the employer had in fact already paid the worker's correct full one month's wages (Rs. 1,103.40) along with the dismissal order, satisfying the statutory pre-condition, and that the worker had failed to prove the Rs. 110 was a recurring wage component. The Court agreed with the High Court's ultimate conclusion (that the dismissal approval was valid) but disagreed with its reasoning, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
A one-off goodwill or "interim relief" payment from an employer is legally different from regular wages, and for statutory compliance purposes only amounts paid regularly as part of the employment terms count as "wages."
