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 moreRajendra Shankar Shukla, a UCO Bank employee, was charge-sheeted in 1998, seven years after the alleged misconduct, for issuing a cheque for Rs. 3 lakh in favour of his brother despite having only about Rs. 1,000 in his account, among other charges. He was dismissed from service in 1999, shortly after he had already superannuated (retired on reaching the age limit), and the disciplinary proceedings continued post-retirement under a bank regulation that allowed this. Both a Single Judge and a Division Bench of the High Court ruled in Shukla's favour, quashing his dismissal, after which the Bank appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision and dismissed the Bank's appeal, holding that the dismissal could not be legally imposed on Shukla after he had already superannuated, only proceedings to withhold pension under separate Pension Regulations could have been initiated, not a dismissal penalty under the Conduct/Discipline Regulations. The Court also found the seven-year delay in issuing the charge sheet unexplained and unreasonable, especially since the Bank had promoted Shukla and allowed him to cross an efficiency bar during the very period it was contemplating action against him. Separately, the Court held that denying Shukla his pension and subsistence allowance throughout the inquiry deprived him of a fair opportunity to defend himself, since a person facing a departmental inquiry cannot be expected to meaningfully participate while financially starved. The Court relied on its own earlier rulings in similar UCO Bank cases confirming that dismissal cannot be imposed after superannuation under these regulations, and imposed Rs. 1 lakh costs on the Bank for persisting with the litigation despite settled law.
An employer generally cannot impose a dismissal penalty on an employee who has already retired on superannuation, only pension-related consequences may follow in such cases, and denying a person facing disciplinary proceedings access to pay, pension, or subsistence allowance undermines their right to a fair defence.
