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 moreA large group of persons in Odisha had worked for years as "Job Contractors" (engaged mainly for land survey, map preparation and consolidation of land holdings) before eventually being regularised into pensionable government posts. Under the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 (as amended in 2001), only enough of their earlier Job Contractor service could be added to their regular service as would make them minimally eligible for pension, not their entire period of contract service. Some Odisha Administrative Tribunal rulings had nonetheless directed that the employees' entire Job Contractor tenure be counted, and the State, after repeatedly and belatedly filing one Special Leave Petition after another over the years, asked the Supreme Court to decide the matter on merits despite the delay.
The Court held that Job Contract employees are legally distinct from "work-charged" employees (a different category for whom, under separate precedent, the entire work-charged tenure counts towards pension once regularised); the Odisha Pension Rules expressly draw this distinction in Rule 18, and since that classification itself was never challenged in any court, the Court could not go behind it or test it against Article 14. Applying the Rules as written, only so much of an employee's Job Contractor service as is needed to make them minimally eligible for pension can be counted, not the whole period, so the Tribunal's contrary rulings extending full credit were incorrect, and the State's appeals were allowed. However, the Court sharply criticised the State's own "extreme carelessness and lethargic" pattern of piecemeal, delayed filings, and ordered that in every case that had been filed late, the State must pay Rs. 1,50,000 as costs to the affected employee within four weeks, with the judgment's benefit withheld until that payment is made.
Statutory service rules must be applied as written when their underlying classification (e.g., "work-charged" versus "job contract" employees) has never itself been legally challenged, even where the outcome favours the State, but a litigant, including the government, that wins on the merits can still be penalised in costs for chronic, unexplained delay in pursuing its own case.
