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 moreAfter Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated into Telangana and residual Andhra Pradesh, a One-Man Committee was set up to allocate the employees of the erstwhile State's power-generation, transmission and distribution utilities between the two new states. After the Committee submitted its "Concluding Report" in June 2020, a large batch of miscellaneous applications was filed before the Supreme Court, by the power utilities themselves, by employees' associations, and by individual employees and officers, objecting to specific allocations, disputed employee counts, and the methodology the Committee had used.
The Supreme Court went through the Committee's allocation methodology in detail, including disputes over the total number of allocable employees and the ratio used to split them between the two states' utilities. It rejected attempts by parties to introduce fresh employee figures before the Court that had not first been placed before the One-Man Committee, holding that the Committee's allocation could not be reopened on that basis. It upheld the Committee's Concluding Report as final, rejected the main objecting applications filed by the utilities and employee groups (including M.A. No. 1286 and M.A. No. 1287 of 2020), and held that M.A. No. 1270 of 2020, the application registered on the Court's own motion to take up the Concluding Report, which corresponds to this diary number, along with "all other M.A.s," stood disposed of in terms of confirming the Committee's allocation. The Court directed that the One-Man Committee's allocation could not be challenged further by any employee, officer or utility before any other forum, while leaving employees free to separately pursue any salary/allowance disputes before the appropriate forum.
When a specialised committee is set up by court order to resolve a complex administrative exercise like dividing employees between two successor states, its considered findings are generally treated as final and binding on all parties who had the opportunity to place their case before it: a party cannot get a second bite by raising new facts or figures for the first time before the court.
