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 Maharashtra government had appointed 15 advocates as Additional Government Pleaders/Assistant Government Pleaders/Additional Public Prosecutors at the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court, but later cancelled all their appointments in August 2015 using a rule meant for removal for misconduct. The High Court quashed the cancellation order, and the State appealed to the Supreme Court. By the time the appeal was heard, the respondents' terms of appointment had already expired by the passage of time, making the original relief largely moot.
The Supreme Court held that since the respondents' terms had already expired, they could no longer be reinstated regardless of the outcome. Instead of simply upholding or quashing the cancellation order, the Court modified it to be treated as a termination under Rule 30(6) (termination with notice/retainer) rather than Rule 30(5) (removal for misconduct), since the latter carried a stigmatic, punitive character. The State was directed to pay each respondent one month's retainer in lieu of notice within three months, while leaving the broader question of law raised in the appeal open for a future case.
Even when a legal dispute becomes practically infructuous (here, because the posts' terms had expired), courts can still fashion a fair, proportionate remedy, distinguishing a stigmatic "removal for misconduct" from a neutral "termination," which matters for the employee's reputation and dues even after the job itself is gone.
