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 appellants were employees of the National Water Development Agency (NWDA), a society funded by the Ministry of Water Resources, who were covered by a Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) scheme rather than the Central Government's 1972 Pension Rules. They claimed that a 1987 Office Memorandum allowing Central Government employees to switch from CPF to the Pension Scheme should also apply to them, and that denying them pension parity violated Article 14 (equal treatment). The Delhi High Court had earlier set aside a Tribunal order favourable to them, leading to this appeal. The matter was heard together with similar pension-parity claims by Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS) staff and one individual's writ petition.
The Supreme Court held that NWDA employees are governed by the NWDA's own 1982 CPF Rules, not the Central Government's CPF Rules, so the 1987 O.M. extending a pension-switch option to Central Government CPF subscribers did not apply to them. Since the appellants failed to establish they were on par with Central Government employees, their equality/parity argument also failed. The Court reiterated that courts should be cautious before directing "equal pay/equal pension" across different employers unless there is complete identity between the groups, as pay and pension structures depend on each employer's financial capacity. On the connected NVS matters, the Court similarly held pension is governed by the applicable rules and declined to extend the 1972 Pension Rules by judicial direction, finding no arbitrariness in the New Pension Scheme's cut-off date either. All appeals and writ petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.
An employee of an autonomous, government-funded body cannot automatically claim the same pension scheme as Central Government employees merely because the organisations are related: pension entitlement flows strictly from the applicable service rules of one's own employer, and "equal pay for equal work" claims require near-complete identity between the compared groups.
