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 moreManjeet Singh joined the Army in 1999 in medical category "AYE." After collapsing during training and being hospitalised for a seizure disorder and later neurotic depression, Medical Boards progressively downgraded his medical category until he was finally boarded out of service on medical grounds. He claimed a disability pension, which the Armed Forces Tribunal/High Court (in an LPA) upheld, finding his disabilities attributable to or aggravated by military service. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court, disputing that the disabilities were service-connected.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the settled legal position (drawing on its own precedents in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and Union of India v. Rajbir Singh) that disability pension provisions for soldiers are beneficial in nature and must be interpreted liberally, and that once a soldier is boarded out with a disability, there is a presumption that the disability is attributable to or aggravated by military service. The burden lies heavily on the employer (the Union of India) to affirmatively prove, through a reasoned Medical Board opinion, that the disease had nothing to do with service: a burden the Union of India failed to discharge here. Finding no infirmity in the concurrent findings of the lower forums, the Court dismissed the Union of India's appeals and sustained the grant of disability pension, with no order as to costs.
A soldier discharged from service on medical grounds does not have to prove his disability was caused by military service: the law presumes it was, and it is the government's burden to disprove that with proper, reasoned medical evidence; soldiers denied disability pension without such reasoning have a strong legal basis to challenge the denial.
