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 technical institute's governing Board cancelled a batch of faculty appointments (Professors, Associate Professors, Assistant Professors) made in April 2013, citing irregularities in the selection process. The dismissed teachers challenged this before the Allahabad High Court, which found the Board's decision-making process flawed because it relied on a "Status Report" that was never shown to the affected teachers, and quashed the cancellation while allowing the Institute to take a fresh decision after giving them a hearing. Instead of simply following that direction, the Institute took further unilateral board decisions and issued fresh show-cause notices, leading to contempt petitions and more litigation, which the Institute then brought to the Supreme Court by way of appeal.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court's judgment had correctly identified a breach of natural justice, the teachers were never given the Status Report that led to their termination, and that all the Institute needed to do was share that report and give the teachers a hearing before deciding afresh. Instead, the Institute's subsequent board meetings and show-cause notices went beyond what the High Court had permitted and only created further unnecessary litigation. The Court set aside those later board decisions, directed the Institute to serve the original Status Report on the teachers, give them two weeks to respond and a hearing, and then take a fresh decision within two months, treating the teachers as deemed to be in service in the meantime (with a carve-out for anyone who had taken up work elsewhere). As a consequence, the pending contempt and writ petitions arising from the invalid later decisions were struck off.
An employer cannot cure a defect of natural justice (withholding the material used against an employee) by taking further unilateral action: the correct course is to disclose the material, give a genuine hearing, and only then decide; until that is done, the dismissed employees are treated as continuing in service.
