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, a bank clerk, was charged with assaulting a bank officer and, after a disciplinary enquiry found the charge proved, was initially dismissed from service. On appeal, the penalty was reduced by the appellate authority to "removal from service" with entitlement to terminal/superannuation benefits, and this order was never challenged by the bank. A subsequent Labour Court award further reducing the penalty and ordering reinstatement was set aside by the High Court, restoring the appellate authority's order. When the bank still refused to process his pension, the respondent went to the High Court again and won a direction for the bank to process his pension.
The Supreme Court dismissed the bank's appeal, holding that once the appellate authority's order, granting the respondent terminal benefits despite removal from service, attained finality without challenge by the bank, the bank could not later invoke Regulation 22 (forfeiture of pension for removed employees) to deny that pension. Applying its earlier ruling in Bank of Baroda v. S.K. Kool, the Court held that Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement (allowing removal "with superannuation benefits") and Regulation 22 must be read harmoniously: an employee otherwise eligible for superannuation benefits, if removed under Clause 6(b), remains entitled to those benefits.
An employer who does not challenge a favourable-to-employee finding (here, entitlement to terminal benefits despite removal) cannot resurrect the issue years later at the pension-disbursal stage: such an unchallenged order attains finality and binds the employer.
