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 moreA Defence Accounts Department employee, when he joined service in 2000, nominated his mother (B. Suguna) to receive his General Provident Fund (GPF). He married the appellant (Bolla Malathi) in 2003 and later nominated her for two other benefit schemes, but never updated the GPF nomination. He died in service in 2021. The wife, who had already received about Rs. 60 lakh in other benefits, sought release of the GPF but was refused because the mother remained the nominee on record. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) split the GPF equally between wife and mother, but the Bombay High Court overturned this and awarded the entire GPF to the mother as the still-valid nominee.
The Supreme Court held that under the applicable GPF Rules and the employee's own nomination form, a nomination automatically becomes invalid once the subscriber "acquires a family" (i.e., marries), even though the Rules don't prescribe a formal cancellation procedure, the condition in the nomination form itself renders it void on that contingency. Since the employee married in 2003 and never re-nominated for GPF, the mother's nomination stood invalidated at the time of his death, so Rule 33(i)(b) required the GPF to be distributed equally among all eligible family members rather than paid solely to the named nominee. The Court also reaffirmed settled law (citing Sarbati Devi and Shakti Yezdani) that a nomination only identifies who is authorised to receive the money, not who owns it: actual entitlement follows the law of succession. The High Court's ruling was set aside and the CAT's order restoring an equal 50-50 split between the wife and mother was upheld.
A nomination for provident fund/insurance benefits is not the same as ownership. It merely identifies who can collect the money, and where scheme rules say a nomination lapses on a change in family status (like marriage), failing to formally update it does not defeat that automatic invalidation; the money must still go according to the rules of succession/eligible family members.
