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 moreM.T. Mani joined the RBI in 1981 and retired in 2014, having repeatedly chosen to remain on the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) scheme instead of switching to RBI's Pension Regulations across four earlier opportunities offered in 1990, 1992, 1995 and 2000. In 2020, RBI opened one final, last-chance option for CPF employees to switch to the Pension Scheme, but made pension payments prospective only from 1 July 2020, with no arrears for the years before. Mani opted into the new scheme but then challenged its prospective-only condition before the Kerala High Court, seeking pension arrears back to his 2014 retirement date. The High Court's Division Bench ruled in his favour, and RBI appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reversed the High Court, holding that a policy's cut-off date can validly rest on legitimate financial and administrative considerations: here, an estimated retrospective liability exceeding Rs. 900 crore for the RBI, and is not arbitrary or discriminatory merely because it disadvantages some employees. Having voluntarily accepted the benefits of the 2020 Scheme, Mani could not selectively reject its unfavourable prospective-effect condition; the Scheme had to be accepted or rejected as a complete package, not picked apart ("approbation and reprobation"). The Kerala High Court's judgment was set aside and the Single Judge's original dismissal of the writ petition was restored.
An employee who accepts the benefits of a scheme cannot later challenge only the terms that are unfavourable to them: such schemes must be taken or left as a whole, and courts will generally defer to an employer's reasoned, finance-driven cut-off date for extending benefits like pension.
