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 moreA contract driver with APSRTC was terminated after a departmental enquiry found him guilty of misconduct; his departmental appeal and review were rejected, and even an industrial dispute he raised was dismissed by the Labour Court. He then went directly to the High Court under Article 226, where the Single Judge, relying solely on an unrelated earlier batch decision concerning differently-placed workers (some terminated without any enquiry at all), ordered the Corporation to treat his service as continuous from termination to re-engagement for regularisation purposes. A Division Bench affirmed this.
The Supreme Court, applying the same reasoning as in its companion APSRTC appeals decided the same day, held that the Single Judge had mechanically applied relief meant for a different batch of workers without examining that here a full, unchallenged enquiry had proved the misconduct, and that even the workman's own industrial dispute challenging the termination had already failed before the Labour Court. It reiterated that continuity of service cannot be granted unless the termination order is itself set aside. The Court allowed the Corporation's appeal and set aside both the High Court orders.
A worker who has already lost a direct challenge to his termination (here, before the Labour Court) cannot later obtain the same practical benefit, continuity of service, through a separate writ petition relying on an unrelated precedent; relief granted to one batch of workers cannot be mechanically extended to a worker with materially different facts.
