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, a contract driver with Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), was terminated after a departmental enquiry, but was later re-engaged on contract following a departmental review. He neither challenged his termination nor his fresh appointment, but sought a High Court order granting him "continuity of service" (for regularisation purposes) from the date of his original termination to his re-engagement. Relying on an earlier common judgment covering a batch of similar cases, a Single Judge and then a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled in his favour, prompting the Corporation to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court allowed the Corporation's appeal, holding that continuity of service can only be granted when the underlying order of termination is itself challenged and set aside, since the respondent never contested his termination or his fresh appointment, there was no proper legal basis to treat him as continuously employed. The Court also noted that granting an employee found guilty of misconduct the same continuity benefit as blemish-free contract employees was inappropriate, and that the High Court had erred by mechanically applying a batch judgment meant for a different set of facts (some involving no enquiry or enquiries that violated natural justice) without examining this respondent's individual circumstances. The High Court's judgments were set aside, and the respondent's seniority was directed to count only from the date of his fresh appointment.
An employee who does not challenge their own termination or the terms of a subsequent re-appointment cannot later claim continuity of service as if no break occurred: the two are legally intertwined, and continuity relief flows only from successfully contesting the termination itself. Court directions issued in "batch" litigation covering many similarly-situated people should not be mechanically extended to someone whose individual facts (such as a valid enquiry finding misconduct) differ materially.
