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 moreSqn. Ldr. Suchet Singh Yadav and several other retired commissioned officers of the Armed Forces (Army, Navy, Air Force), all of whom had retired before 1 January 1996, claimed they were entitled to be placed in the next higher pay scale (that of a Lt. Colonel or equivalent) under a Government of India order dated 21.11.1997 issued following the Fifth Pay Commission. The Armed Forces Tribunal had rejected their claim, holding the 1997 order did not apply to officers who had already retired before 1.1.1996. This appeal, along with several connected appeals raising the same legal question, was taken up together by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the Government order dated 21.11.1997 was issued with respect to "pay and allowances" of serving officers and presupposed that the officer was still in service on 1.1.1996; it did not confer any higher pay-scale benefit on officers who had already retired before that date. A separate 1999 order dealing specifically with pension of pre-1996 retirees followed a different formula and did not support the appellants' claim either. The Court also clarified that an earlier Tribunal ruling in the "Maj. K.G. Thomas" case (which had favoured similarly situated officers) was based on a concession by the government in that specific case and could not be treated as a binding precedent, as the Supreme Court itself had earlier confined that ruling to its own facts. On this reasoning, the Court dismissed the appeal of Suchet Singh Yadav and the connected officer-appellants, while allowing the Union of India's appeals against Tribunal orders that had wrongly granted the benefit to other pre-1996 retirees.
A benefit announced in a government pay-revision order generally applies only to those who met its stated conditions (such as being in service on the cut-off date): citizens and officers relying on such orders should check the precise wording and applicability date before assuming entitlement, and a tribunal ruling based on a one-off government concession in a specific case cannot be relied upon as a general precedent.
