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 Maharashtra Government, by Resolutions dated 21.08.2006 and 15.09.2006, created 471 posts of Legal Advisors, Law Officers and Law Instructors under the Director General of Police/Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai, to be filled purely on a contractual basis (initial term of 11 months, renewable up to three terms, on consolidated pay with no entitlement to permanent-service benefits). The respondents, appointed on this contractual basis and whose terms expired after the maximum renewals, challenged the contractual conditions before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which struck down the relevant clauses as arbitrary (though without directing regularisation). On further writ petitions by both sides, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) held the 471 posts to be permanent in nature, prompting the State's appeal to the Supreme Court. This judgment disposed of the lead appeal (SLP 34788-34789/2012, Diary No. 32974/2012) together with twenty connected appeals arising from materially identical facts.
The Supreme Court held that the Government Resolutions and the specific appointment agreements signed by the respondents unambiguously fixed their appointments as purely contractual, capped at three successive 11-month terms, with an express clause that they would not acquire any right to permanent service. The Court held the respondents, having accepted appointment on these contractual terms, were estopped from later challenging those very terms. It further held that mere creation of posts for administrative/budgetary purposes does not convert contractual appointments into permanent ones, and that courts should not interfere with a government's policy decision to engage personnel on a contractual basis. Finding that the High Court had failed to properly consider the Resolutions and the agreements, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, allowed the lead appeal, and consequently allowed all the connected appeals in the batch as well.
An employee who knowingly accepts a fixed-term contractual appointment, with an explicit clause disclaiming any right to permanent status, cannot later claim regularisation merely because the underlying posts were formally "created" by the government: contractual terms voluntarily accepted are generally binding and courts will not override a government's policy choice to hire on contract.
