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-employee of the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank was dismissed after a departmental inquiry found him guilty on three misconduct charges; his departmental appeal was also dismissed. He challenged this in a writ petition before the Patna High Court. A Single Judge set aside the Appellate Authority's order and sent the matter back for fresh consideration, and when the Appellate Authority again dismissed his appeal, the employee again approached the High Court: this time the Single Judge, without independently examining each of the three charges, set aside the dismissal, and a Division Bench of the High Court (in a Letters Patent Appeal) further modified this by remanding the matter to the Disciplinary Authority itself, rather than back to the Single Judge.
The Supreme Court held that the Single Judge had a legal obligation to independently examine the evidence on each of the three charges and record findings before setting aside the dismissal order, which had not been done, making that order erroneous. The Court further held that the Division Bench compounded this error: having correctly spotted the Single Judge's flaw, it should have remanded the case back to the Single Judge to decide the writ petition properly on merits, not remanded it all the way back to the Disciplinary Authority. The Supreme Court therefore set aside both the Single Judge's and the Division Bench's orders, allowed the Bank's appeal, and restored the original writ petition to the Single Judge's file, directing the Single Judge to decide it afresh on merits (uninfluenced by any of the earlier observations) and, given how old the matter was, to do so within six months if possible; the connected cross-appeals filed by the employee were disposed of in light of this same order.
When a court reviewing a disciplinary dismissal finds fault with a lower court's order, the correct remedy is usually to send the matter back to that same court to properly re-decide the case on its merits, not to short-circuit the process by sending it back further down the chain (e.g., to the original disciplinary authority) without a proper judicial examination of the charges first.
