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 moreSeveral sanitation workers (safai kamdars) of the Umrala Gram Panchayat in Gujarat, some serving for as long as 18 years, were kept as daily-wage workers and denied the pay and benefits given to permanent staff. Through the Municipal Employees Union, they raised an industrial dispute, and the Labour Court in 1991 passed an award in their favour. The Gram Panchayat's challenges to that award failed before a single judge of the Gujarat High Court and then before the Division Bench in a Letters Patent Appeal, so the Panchayat appealed further to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the workmen had each worked more than 240 days in a calendar year from their initial appointment, which under the Industrial Disputes Act and settled case law entitled them to be treated as permanent employees, and that denying them this status amounted to an unfair labour practice and an error of law. The Court distinguished the Panchayat's reliance on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, holding that Umadevi dealt with a different issue (irregular appointments bypassing recruitment process) and did not address unfair labour practice under the Industrial Disputes Act, so it could not be used to defeat these workmen's claims. The Court dismissed the appeals, directed that the workmen's services be treated as permanent after five years of their initial appointment as daily wagers (until superannuation, for terminal benefits), and ordered payment of the revised permanent pay-scale for a 15-year period, with compliance to be reported to the Court within six weeks.
A workman who has put in more than 240 days of continuous service in a year cannot indefinitely be kept as a "daily wager" to deny permanent status and benefits, and the Umadevi judgment (often cited by employers to resist regularization) does not apply to claims of unfair labour practice decided under the Industrial Disputes Act.
