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 was appointed Professor at the Indian Institute of Tourism and Travel Management (IITTM) in January 1997, initially on contract. In 2006 he was separately appointed Director of IITTM on a three-year contract, and his service as Director ended in December 2009. Meanwhile, the government had in October 2006 (ratified by IITTM's Board in December 2006) ordered retrospective regularization of 68 posts, including the Professor's post the appellant held, based on a 2002 staff-assessment report. When the appellant tried to resume as Professor after his Director term ended, IITTM refused, and the High Court of Orissa upheld that refusal, reasoning he was not an "existing incumbent" when the regularization order issued.
The Supreme Court held that the regularization order covered all 68 posts recommended by the 2002 Staff Inspection Unit assessment, including the appellant's Professor post, and that the "existing incumbents" language in the order referred only to a separate category of 35 extra contractual posts, not to the 68 regularized posts. Since the appellant was appointed and assessed for regularization before he moved to the Director post, his later move to a different post could not retroactively deny him the regularization. The Court therefore held he must be treated as regularized as Professor with effect from 27 January 1997. On the separate question of whether he could still claim "lien" (the right to return) to the Professor post after his Director tenure ended, the Court found the lower authority's rejection (on the ground he was never "substantively" appointed) was based on an incorrect premise, and remitted that specific sub-issue to the competent departmental authority to decide afresh in light of the Court's finding on regularization.
A retrospective regularization order covering a defined category of posts applies to everyone who held one of those posts at the relevant time, even if that person has since moved to a different post: a later transfer does not erase an entitlement that had already accrued.
