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 dispute arose from the merger of two government directorates in West Bengal, after which the affected employees were given higher pay-scales under the merger scheme but were consequently denied the separate benefits available under the Career Advancement Scheme, 1990 (CAS) and its later version, the Modified Career Advancement Scheme, 2001 (MCAS). The employees' association argued that, had the merger not happened, they would have been better off under CAS/MCAS, and the State appealed to the Supreme Court against a ruling favouring the employees.
During the hearing, the State's counsel informed the Court that the State did not wish to contest the issue further and was willing to grant the employees the CAS/MCAS benefits, provided the employees gave up what they had already received under the merger scheme. The Supreme Court accepted this resolution and disposed of the appeal by directing that the employees be granted CAS/MCAS benefits on par with other government employees, with amounts already paid under the merger scheme to be adjusted against the monetary dues now payable under CAS/MCAS. The State was directed to complete this exercise within two months of receiving the judgment.
Government employees cannot simultaneously claim the benefits of two different, overlapping pay-benefit schemes (e.g., a merger-linked pay hike and a separate career-advancement scheme), accepting one scheme's benefit can require surrendering the other, and such disputes are often resolved through a negotiated adjustment of past payments rather than a contested ruling.
