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 conductor employed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) was dismissed after a departmental enquiry found him guilty of misconduct; his departmental appeal and the industrial dispute he subsequently raised were both rejected, confirming his termination. A single judge of the High Court nonetheless ordered his reinstatement with continuity of service, relying entirely on an earlier, factually different case where a different employee had been dismissed without any enquiry at all. The Division Bench affirmed this on appeal and then dismissed APSRTC's review application without examining the distinguishing facts the Corporation had specifically pointed out.
The Supreme Court held that the courts below erred in mechanically applying a precedent dealing with dismissal without any enquiry to a case where a full departmental enquiry had in fact been held and was separately upheld by the Industrial Tribunal. Since the facts of the earlier case the High Court relied on did not match the present case at all, that precedent could not govern the outcome here. The Court accordingly set aside the Division Bench's judgment, its review order, and the single judge's original order, and allowed APSRTC's appeal.
A court ruling favouring reinstatement in one employee's case cannot simply be copied onto a different employee's situation without checking whether the underlying facts genuinely match, whether a proper disciplinary enquiry was actually held and upheld is a critical distinguishing fact that courts must examine, not ignore.
