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 respondent, a Chief Manager at a State Bank of India branch, was charge-sheeted in 1999 for financial irregularities and eventually removed from service in 2003 after an inquiry found ten of sixteen charges proved. A Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court set aside the punishment for lack of a hearing on the quantum of punishment, and when the Bank called the respondent for a fresh hearing he repeatedly refused to appear, instead re-litigating the matter. The Bank then passed a fresh removal order in 2016, and the respondent's intra-court appeal was dismissed, but the Division Bench still directed the Bank to give him one more opportunity of hearing "in the interest of justice."
The Supreme Court held that once the Bank had already offered the respondent three separate opportunities for a personal hearing (which he deliberately avoided while pursuing litigation), he was not entitled to yet another chance merely on the ground of "justice demands." The Court found the Division Bench's direction for a further opportunity unsustainable and set it aside, holding that an employee who declines offered opportunities cannot later complain of being denied a fair hearing. Given the gravity of the proven financial irregularities running into crores of rupees, the Court held the removal order could not be said to be unjust, and allowed the Bank's appeal.
An employee facing disciplinary action must actually avail of the hearing opportunities offered, rather than stalling through repeated litigation: courts will not keep granting fresh chances to someone who deliberately bypassed earlier ones.
