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 Branch Manager, was dismissed from service after disciplinary proceedings found him guilty of misconduct (failure to protect the bank's interests and acts unbecoming of an officer). The bank then forfeited his gratuity, treating the misconduct as "an offence involving moral turpitude." The High Court held that under the bank's own bipartite settlement (which allowed forfeiture only where the misconduct caused financial loss), and since no financial loss was shown, the employee was entitled to his gratuity. The Bank appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that under Section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, an employee is entitled to the benefit of better terms under any contract or settlement instead of the Act, and here the bank's own bipartite settlement permitted forfeiture only when the misconduct caused the bank financial loss, which admittedly had not happened. Separately, the Court clarified that forfeiture under Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Act for an "offence involving moral turpitude" requires that the employee actually be convicted of a criminal offence by a court of law: a bank's own internal disciplinary finding of misconduct is not enough, since only a court, not the employer, can determine whether an offence has been committed. Since the respondent was never criminally convicted, forfeiture on that ground also failed. The Court held that forfeiture of gratuity is not automatic merely because an employee is dismissed, and dismissed the Bank's appeal.
An employer cannot withhold an employee's gratuity simply by dismissing them for "misconduct": forfeiture under the Gratuity Act requires either proven financial loss to the employer or an actual criminal conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude; an internal departmental finding alone is not sufficient.
