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 moreSwapna Mohanty and Respondent No. 4 both held Lecturer-in-English posts at a junior college in Odisha: Mohanty on the senior "1st post" and Respondent No. 4 on the "2nd post." Mohanty's services were terminated in 2001, after which Respondent No. 4 was appointed to her vacated 1st post. Mohanty's departmental appeal against her termination was eventually allowed in 2006 by the Director of Higher Education, reinstating her to the 1st post, and a Tribunal subsequently directed that the government grant-in-aid follow her into that post. Respondent No. 4 separately sought the Tribunal's approval of his own claim to the 1st post and grant-in-aid; when his claim was rejected, he challenged it in the Odisha High Court, which ruled in his favour, holding that the Tribunal's earlier order favouring Mohanty was void for not impleading him and that the Director of Higher Education lacked jurisdiction to have heard her original appeal.
The Supreme Court found the High Court's jurisdictional objection to be factually incorrect: Mohanty's original appeal had in fact been filed in 2002, while the Director of Higher Education still had jurisdiction, since the college was only brought under the grant-in-aid scheme in 2004, and a later 2005 letter cited by the High Court was merely a reminder, not a fresh appeal. The Court also held that Respondent No. 4 was not a "necessary party" to Mohanty's proceedings over her own termination and reinstatement, since those proceedings concerned only the natural consequence of setting aside her termination (restoring her to her own former post), not any independent entitlement of Respondent No. 4; the fact that he would consequently have to revert to his original 2nd post was simply a side effect of correcting the earlier illegal termination. On this basis, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and allowed Mohanty's appeal, restoring her to the 1st post with grant-in-aid.
A person who later benefits from someone else's wrongful termination is not automatically a "necessary party" to that terminated employee's reinstatement proceedings: when a termination is set aside, the natural consequence of restoring the rightful employee to their original post can be given effect even without that other person having been formally included in the case.
