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 respondents were employees of the Assam Financial Corporation (AFC) who retired between 2018 and 2019 and were paid gratuity under the AFC's own 1964 Gratuity Regulations, as amended by 2007 Staff Regulations. They argued they were entitled to a higher gratuity ceiling under Section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, but the AFC applied a lower internal ceiling. The Gauhati High Court's Single Judge and Division Bench both ruled in favour of the employees, prompting the AFC's appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined Regulation 107 of the 2007 Staff Regulations and found that it imported the higher gratuity ceiling accepted by the State Government under the Payment of Gratuity Act, meaning the employees' entitlement flowed from the AFC's own regulations rather than needing to rely on the Gratuity Act directly. The Court held it would be inequitable for employees to suffer because the AFC delayed updating its ceiling, and deliberately declined to decide the separate, more general question of whether the Payment of Gratuity Act itself applies to AFC employees, leaving that open for a future case. The appeal was dismissed and the AFC was directed to calculate and pay the balance gratuity within six months.
Where an employer's own service regulations independently incorporate a statutory benefit or ceiling, employees can claim that benefit directly under the regulations, and an employer cannot use its own delay in updating internal rules as a shield to deny employees their due.
