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 appellant, a Bank of India branch manager, was issued a memo in September 2000 flagging irregularities in loan disbursement during his tenure, and he replied in October 2000. Before the disciplinary proceedings concluded, the Bank announced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme in November 2000, for which the appellant applied; he was later formally charge-sheeted in March 2001, admitted the charges, and was penalised with a reduction in pay by five stages, after which the Bank accepted his voluntary retirement application in June 2001. He challenged the punishment order, arguing that since the Bank hadn't acted on his retirement application by the Scheme's internal deadline of 31 December 2000, his retirement should be deemed to have taken effect on that date, before the charge-sheet and punishment were issued, making the whole disciplinary action void.
The Supreme Court held that the Voluntary Retirement Scheme's clauses were partly mandatory and partly directory: deadlines binding on the employee (like the date to apply) were mandatory, but deadlines binding on the Bank as a public functionary (like completing formalities by 31 December 2000) were merely directory, since the Scheme specified no consequence for the Bank's delay and no "deeming fiction" clause ever matured the retirement automatically. Since the employer-employee relationship therefore continued until the Bank actually accepted the retirement application in June 2001, the Bank was entitled to charge-sheet and discipline the appellant in March 2001 while he was still in service. As the appellant had unconditionally admitted the charges, no further inquiry was needed, and the reduction-in-pay penalty, already described by the disciplinary authority as a lenient view given his record, was found just and proper. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court's result (though on different reasoning).
A statutory or scheme-based deadline binding a public authority (like a bank) is often treated as merely directory rather than mandatory when the rule itself specifies no automatic consequence for missing it, so an employee cannot assume a benefit (like deemed retirement) kicks in automatically just because the employer was late, unless the scheme explicitly says so.
