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 moreThis judgment jointly decides two connected civil appeals filed by State Bank of India against its former employee Mohammad Badruddin; the appeal relevant to this entry, Civil Appeal No. 5604 of 2019 (arising from SLP(C) No. 20488 of 2017), concerned his removal from service in 1993 over five charges, including opening a fake bank account that enabled frauds worth over Rs. 2.5 lakh. The Inquiry Officer found only one charge (improper cash-book checking) clearly proved, but the Disciplinary Authority disagreed and additionally found him guilty on two more charges without ever communicating its reasons for disagreeing with the Inquiry Officer's findings to Badruddin, then removed him from service considering his prior punishment record as well. The Jharkhand High Court's Division Bench set aside the removal for breach of natural justice, and the Bank appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that failing to communicate the Disciplinary Authority's reasons for disagreeing with the Inquiry Officer's favourable findings (on two of the charges) was indeed a breach of natural justice, following its earlier ruling in Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra. However, it held that the High Court went too far in granting full reinstatement with back wages, because one charge (improper cash-book checking, which was never in dispute) remained validly proved, and it was for the Disciplinary Authority, not the High Court, to decide what punishment that surviving charge alone could justify. Since Badruddin had since reached retirement age (making reinstatement impossible), the Court set aside both the removal order and the High Court's order granting full back wages, and instead sent the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority to decide, within three months, whether to record proper reasons on the disputed charges and/or impose a fresh punishment based on the undisputed charge, along with appropriate back wages and terminal benefits.
In a disciplinary inquiry, if the authority deciding punishment wants to overturn an inquiry officer's finding that cleared the employee on a particular charge, it must tell the employee why and give a chance to respond, skipping this step can unravel the punishment, but it does not automatically mean the employee walks away with full back pay, especially where some other charge was validly and separately proved.
