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 moreTeachers employed as Lecturers/Assistant Professors at engineering institutes run by AISSMS, a private, non-grant-aided society, sought revised pay scales and re-designation as Associate Professors following the 6th Pay Commission and related AICTE notifications. The Bombay High Court ruled in the teachers' favour and directed the Society to extend these benefits. The Society appealed, arguing that most of the respondent-teachers lacked a PhD: a qualification AICTE had made mandatory for Assistant Professors from 15 March 2000 onward, with a seven-year window to acquire it.
The Supreme Court held that a PhD became a compulsory qualification for Assistant Professors only from 15.03.2000, so teachers appointed before that date (or who acquired a PhD within seven years of a later appointment) were entitled to the higher pay scale and Associate Professor designation. However, teachers appointed after 15.03.2000 who never acquired a PhD within the required seven years could not claim the benefit, since equating them with PhD-holders would undermine teaching quality standards that AICTE's rules were designed to protect. The appeal was partly allowed: four named teachers appointed before the cut-off (and one who later obtained a PhD) were granted the higher pay scale with interest, while the rest were denied it, though free to reapply once they complete a PhD.
Statutory qualification benchmarks set by a regulatory body like AICTE genuinely govern eligibility for higher pay and academic designation: an employer cannot be compelled to extend the same benefits to everyone regardless of whether they meet the qualification prescribed at the time of their appointment.
