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 respondent was appointed as a Pilot Officer at Tuticorin (V.O. Chidambaranar) Port Trust on a regular basis in 2008, holding a Certificate of Competency as Master issued by the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore. In 2012, the Port Trust terminated his service, contending that his Singapore-issued certificate was not recognised as equivalent to a Government of India certificate at the time of his appointment. He challenged the termination, and both a Single Judge and a Division Bench of the Madras High Court ruled in his favour, ordering reinstatement with back wages (while also allowing the Port Trust a fresh opportunity to examine his certificate's validity). The Port Trust appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined the Port Trust's own regulations, its correspondence with the Directorate General of Shipping, and the clarification from the Deputy Nautical Advisor, and found that the Port Trust itself had never objected to the Singapore certificate at the time of appointment: in fact it had written to the Government seeking to validate the respondent's engagement based on that very certificate, and he had since passed the relevant Indian pilot licensing examination. The Court held there was no substance in the Port Trust's objection and no need to re-examine the certificate, as the Division Bench had directed. However, since the respondent had admittedly not worked since 2012, the Court modified the High Court's order by reducing the back wages payable to 40% of what would otherwise be due, partly allowing the appeal only to that extent: expressly stating the ruling was confined to the special facts of this case and not to be treated as a precedent.
An employer cannot terminate an employee's job years later on a qualification objection it never raised at the time of hiring, especially when its own past conduct showed acceptance of that qualification, though courts may still moderate the back-wages remedy to reflect the practical realities of a long period without work.
