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, an Army Medical Corps doctor, was granted two years of study leave abroad to specialise in prosthetic surgery, later extended by twelve months by special sanction of the President of India. The Army paid him during the original two years but denied him pay and allowances for the extended twelve-month period. He challenged this before the Armed Forces Tribunal, which ruled in his favour, and the Union of India appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court.
The Court held that Army Instruction 13/1978, which entitles an officer to full pay during study leave and counts such leave towards pay, promotion and pension, applied equally to the extended period since it was sanctioned on the same special dispensation as the original leave. It rejected the Union's reliance on an older instruction (191/62) denying pay during "secondment," finding the later instruction controlling. The Tribunal's interpretation was upheld as correct, and the Union was directed to pay all outstanding dues within two months with 9% annual interest, recompute retiral benefits accordingly, and pay costs of Rs. 50,000 to the respondent.
When specific, later-issued service rules grant a benefit (like full pay during sanctioned study leave), they override older, more general rules, and government employees who are wrongly denied legitimately sanctioned benefits are entitled to both the arrears and interest for the delay.
