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 moreFollowing the 6th Central Pay Commission's recommendations in 2008, the Tamil Nadu government revised pay scales for various employee categories, including Assistant Engineers. A Pay Grievance Redressal Cell (PGRC) was later constituted to examine complaints about disparities in the revised scales, and its recommendations (which lowered some engineers' pay bands relative to an earlier order) were implemented by the government. Affected employees' associations challenged this process, and the Madras High Court directed the government to set up a fresh PGRC to reconsider the matter; both the employees' association and the government cross-appealed this direction to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that there was nothing inherently illegal in the government's decision to set up a PGRC to review pay-scale grievances, rejecting arguments that the whole exercise was invalid. However, it found that the earlier PGRC proceedings suffered from inadequate notice and hearing to affected employees, justifying the High Court's direction for a fresh review. The Court then issued detailed, specific modifications to the High Court's directions, including who should sit on the reconstituted PGRC, an increased honorarium for its Chairperson, a strict timeline (PGRC to conclude its exercise within four months), and a clarification that any financial benefits already paid to employees would not be clawed back even if the final pay scale is later reduced. The appeals were disposed of on these terms, with the actual merits of the pay-scale question left for the PGRC itself to decide.
When government decision-making affecting employees' pay or benefits is challenged for being procedurally unfair (such as inadequate hearing), courts will often not decide the underlying merits themselves, instead they ensure a fair process is followed (proper committee, adequate notice, clear timelines) and let the specialized body make the substantive decision, while protecting employees from having already-paid benefits clawed back retroactively.
