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 textile mill in Coimbatore sought permission from the Joint Commissioner of Labour to add "break in service" as a new ground for punishing employees under its Certified Standing Orders, meaning any period an employee was absent (even briefly) could be treated as a break in continuous service. The Joint Commissioner initially allowed this, but the workers' union appealed, and the Labour Court set the amendment aside, holding it would prejudice workers' rights and could be misused by the employer, including undermining their gratuity entitlements. The mill's challenges before a single judge and a Division Bench of the Madras High Court both failed, leading to this appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's reasoning that the existing grounds for punishment in the Standing Orders were already adequate, and that allowing "break in service" as a punishment ground would let the employer penalise even a single day's unavoidable absence by disrupting the employee's continuous service: directly undermining the calculation of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act. It held the proposed amendment was neither bona fide nor reasonable, was liable to be misused against employees' interests, and would defeat the beneficial purpose of gratuity legislation. Finding no error in the concurrent findings of the Labour Court, single judge, and Division Bench, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
Employers cannot amend standing orders in ways that let them manipulate an employee's "continuous service" record to defeat statutory benefits like gratuity; such changes will be struck down as unreasonable and against the welfare purpose of labour welfare legislation.
