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 and a co-worker were engaged in 1993-94 as casual "civil cooks" at Army Training Command, Shimla, paid out of Regimental Funds (funds raised by Unit-run canteens, not the Consolidated Fund of India), and were terminated in 2003. The Central Administrative Tribunal held their termination invalid and ordered reinstatement, and the High Court of Himachal Pradesh affirmed this. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that employees of Unit-run canteens are not government servants and that the Tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction over their claim at all.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, relying on a three-judge bench precedent (R.R. Pillai v. Commanding Officer, Southern Air Command) which had settled that employees of Unit-run/Regimental canteens are not government employees and do not hold a civil post under the Union, since the canteens are not funded from the Consolidated Fund of India. Because the respondents were not government servants, the Central Administrative Tribunal had no jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to entertain their case in the first place, making its reinstatement order (and the High Court's affirmance of it) unsustainable. The Court set aside both the Tribunal's order and the High Court's judgment and dismissed the original applications, while leaving it open to the regimental canteen authorities to take a sympathetic view on continuing the workers given their long years of service.
A tribunal or court can only hear a case if it actually has jurisdiction over the parties involved: here, because Unit-run canteen staff are not legally "government employees," the Armed Forces Tribunal/CAT route was never available to them, regardless of how long they had worked or how unfair their termination seemed. Workers in similar privately/regimentally funded but government-adjacent roles should clarify their employment status early, as it determines which forum (if any) can grant them relief.
