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 moreB.R. Saini, a State Bank of India officer, faced multiple fraud-related disciplinary charges (fraudulently availing loans under fake signatures, manipulating inspection timing, and unexplained bank transactions). An Inquiring Authority found most charges proved; the Disciplinary Authority (who lacked power to impose a major penalty) disagreed with two findings, gave Saini a chance to respond, and then forwarded the whole record to the Appointing Authority, who imposed removal from service. Both a Single Judge and a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside the removal, holding that natural justice required a further opportunity/notice before the Appointing Authority itself imposed the penalty.
The Supreme Court held that once an employee has been given the Inquiry Report and a chance to respond to it (including to any point of disagreement raised by the Disciplinary Authority), there is no additional requirement under natural justice for a second show-cause notice before the Appointing Authority actually decides on and imposes the penalty. The Court distinguished its earlier ruling in State Bank of India vs Ranjit Kumar Chakraborty, clarifying that it never required a further notice at the penalty stage once the employee had already had a fair opportunity to be heard on the substance of the charges. The High Court's judgments were set aside and the removal order was upheld.
An employee facing disciplinary action is entitled to see the inquiry findings and respond to them, but is not automatically entitled to a second, separate notice specifically about the penalty before it is imposed: one genuine opportunity to be heard on the substance of the charges is generally enough to satisfy natural justice.
