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 bank employee (Sub-Staff/Duftery-cum-Cash Peon), was compulsorily retired after disciplinary proceedings found irregularities linked to a loan sanctioned at a branch where he worked, based on an investigation report by the branch manager. A labour tribunal set aside the punishment and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service (without back wages), and the Karnataka High Court upheld the tribunal's award. The bank appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that both the tribunal and the High Court had erred: there was material suggesting the irregularities were committed by the branch manager at the respondent's own instigation, and that the respondent was the direct beneficiary of the irregular loan. It held the tribunal wrongly interfered with the Disciplinary Authority's punishment on the mistaken view that compulsory retirement would deprive the employee of all retirement benefits. The Court clarified that compulsory retirement (unlike dismissal) does not forfeit retirement benefits. The Court set aside the tribunal and High Court orders, restored the punishment of compulsory retirement, but confirmed the respondent remains entitled to gratuity and other pensionary benefits.
Compulsory retirement as a disciplinary punishment is legally distinct from dismissal: an employee compulsorily retired for proven misconduct does not lose retirement benefits like gratuity, but that entitlement does not by itself make the punishment "too harsh" or justify overturning a properly conducted disciplinary finding.
