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 applied for voluntary retirement under the Bank's 2001 scheme on its last operative day, then tried to withdraw his application the next day: a withdrawal barred by the scheme's own irrevocability clause. His earlier challenge to this very point had already been decided against him by the Supreme Court in 2003 and 2004 (holding the scheme's irrevocability clause valid for this Bank). Years later, invoking a different, later Supreme Court ruling on withdrawal of VRS applications generally, he filed a fresh writ petition reopening the same issue, and the Punjab & Haryana High Court's Division Bench ruled in his favour.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in reopening a question that had already been conclusively decided against the respondent in earlier rounds of litigation between the same parties: that earlier judgment operated as a judgment in personam binding him. The attempt to use a later, unrelated Supreme Court decision (on a different corporation's VRS scheme) to resurrect a settled dispute was not permissible, especially since his own interlocutory application for enhanced ex-gratia had been withdrawn with limited liberty, not a licence to re-litigate the retirement itself. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, but, recognising that the Bank had delayed crediting his ex-gratia payment for years while he worked under interim court orders, directed the Bank to pay him a one-time Rs. 1,00,000 compensation in full and final settlement, with no recovery of past benefits.
A legal issue finally decided between the same parties cannot be reopened in later litigation merely because a different, factually distinct precedent is later decided by the courts; however, courts can still order equitable relief for genuine delays even while ruling against the party on the main legal point.
