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 moreUdai Bhan Singh, a Postal Assistant at the Allahabad Head Post Office, was charge-sheeted in 1988 for authorising fraudulent commission payments under the National Savings Certificate Scheme to fake agents, causing a loss of over Rs. 6.65 lakh to the department. After a departmental inquiry and a remand by the Central Administrative Tribunal for fresh notice, the disciplinary authority ultimately dismissed him from service in 2000, and his further appeals before the appellate authority and the Tribunal failed. The Allahabad High Court, however, set aside the dismissal and ordered his reinstatement with full back wages, holding that relevant documents had not been supplied to him during the inquiry and that there had been undue delay in concluding the proceedings.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred on both counts. On the natural-justice point, the Court found that Singh's plea about missing documents was vague, that he never specified which documents were needed or what prejudice resulted, and that the charges were independently established through other available records. On delay, the Court held that delay alone does not invalidate disciplinary proceedings unless it causes actual prejudice to the employee: here, Singh had already been reinstated with pay during the pendency of the remanded proceedings, so no prejudice arose. The Court also noted the High Court had relied on an irrelevant tribunal rule. It restored the dismissal order, affirming the Tribunal's view that misconduct was proved and the penalty was not disproportionate.
A disciplinary penalty will not be struck down merely because proceedings took years or because an employee generally alleges documents were withheld: the employee must show which specific document was needed and what real prejudice resulted from the delay or non-disclosure.
