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 Kerala government had sanctioned new degree/postgraduate courses in several private aided colleges on the explicit condition that this would create "no additional financial commitment" for the State. Teachers were appointed by the colleges' Statutory Selection Committees (which included government and university representatives) to teach these new courses, but the university/government later refused to approve the appointments or pay salaries, citing the "no financial commitment" condition. A Kerala High Court Single Judge initially ordered the State to pay the salaries; a Division Bench reversed this, but on review, the Division Bench reinstated the direction to pay, relying on the Direct Payment Agreement and University Statutes.
The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeals, upholding the High Court's review decision. It found that the teachers had been validly appointed by the Statutory Selection Committee (a body that itself included government/university representatives), that the courses were genuinely aided courses falling within the Direct Payment Agreement, and that there was no finding that the college management had violated the terms of that agreement. Given years of the teachers' actual service and evidence (obtained via the RTI Act) that the government had in fact paid salaries to similarly placed teachers elsewhere, the Court held it would be unjust to deny these teachers their salaries, and it was the State's obligation to honour appointments made through its own approved selection process.
A government cannot rely on a generic "no additional financial commitment" condition to permanently avoid paying the salaries of employees who were appointed through a selection process that the government itself participated in and approved, especially once those employees have rendered years of genuine service.
