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, appointed a Staff Nurse in Karnataka in 1979, requested and was granted a cadre change to First Division Assistant in 1989 on medical grounds after a government medical board found her unfit to continue as a nurse; she expressly consented in writing to take seniority below the last-placed employee in the new post. When the State finalised a seniority list in 2007 fixing her seniority from 1989, she challenged it before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, claiming her seniority should instead run from her original 1979 appointment. The Tribunal and the Karnataka High Court both ruled in her favour, prompting the State's appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Court examined Rule 16 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 and Rule 6 of the Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957, drawing a sharp distinction between a transfer made in "public interest" (which preserves an employee's existing seniority) and a transfer made "at the employee's own request" (which places the employee below all existing officers in the new cadre). It held that a cadre change granted on medical grounds, at the employee's own request and with her written consent to take junior-most seniority, cannot be treated as a transfer in the public interest merely because a medical board's report triggered it. Finding that the High Court's precedent (K. Seetharamulu) had wrongly blurred this distinction and had overlooked a more directly applicable Karnataka High Court ruling (M.K. Jagadeesh) on near-identical facts, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the 2007 seniority list fixing her seniority from 19 April 1989.
A government employee who voluntarily seeks a transfer or cadre change, even for medical reasons, and accepts junior-most seniority as a condition of that transfer cannot later claim seniority from their original date of appointment; only transfers made by the government for administrative/public-interest reasons carry forward an employee's existing seniority.
