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 moreRam Prakash Singh, an Assistant Engineer in the UP Panchayati Raj department, was accused of embezzling about Rs. 2.5 crore of panchayat funds through fake work records on drainage and road projects. A departmental enquiry held him guilty, and he was dismissed from service, with a further Rs. 10.25 lakh penalty: just two days after his date of superannuation in 2010. He challenged the dismissal before the UP State Public Services Tribunal, which set aside the punishment, finding that the enquiry was conducted without examining any witnesses or giving him a fair opportunity to defend himself. The Allahabad High Court upheld the Tribunal's order, and the State appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal, agreeing that the disciplinary enquiry had violated basic due process: no witnesses were examined to prove the charges, documents relied upon were never supplied to the employee, and he was denied a real opportunity to defend himself. While the normal remedy for such a procedural defect is to remand the case for a fresh enquiry, the Court declined to do so here because the alleged misconduct dated back to 2004-05, decades had passed, the employee had long retired, and the State had already had one chance (given by the Tribunal) to fix the enquiry but failed to use it; two similarly-placed colleagues had also gone largely unpunished. The Court ordered that the respondent be paid his full retiral benefits within three months, with 6% interest for any delay.
Disciplinary action against a government employee must follow fair procedure: proper evidence, examined witnesses, and a genuine hearing; where the enquiry is fundamentally flawed and years have already been lost, courts may refuse to give the employer a second chance to redo it, effectively closing the matter in the employee's favour.
