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 moreBank pensioners who retired before 1 November 2002 challenged the bank's formula for dearness relief (inflation-linked top-up on pension), arguing they should get the same flat rate applied to those who retired after that date. The Calcutta High Court agreed with the retirees and directed the bank to pay dearness relief to all pensioners at the same rate, rejecting any distinction based on retirement date. The bank appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the two groups of retirees were governed by genuinely different, non-comparable formulas created through collective bargaining (bipartite settlements between bank managements and employee unions).
The Supreme Court held that pre- and post-November-2002 retirees are not a "homogenous group": their dearness relief formulas use fundamentally different tapering structures and were the product of distinct negotiated settlements, each a package deal covering a fixed overall sum of money, so parts of one scheme cannot simply be grafted onto the other. The Court noted that an earlier, similar challenge from the Madras High Court had already been dismissed and upheld by the Supreme Court on this very point, meaning the issue stood concluded by the doctrine of merger. Relying on precedents (including D.S. Nakara, which the Court held has only limited application and doesn't mandate identical pension amounts regardless of retirement date), the Court found the High Court's reasoning erroneous, allowed the bank's appeals, set aside the High Court's orders, and dismissed the retirees' original writ petition. No costs were awarded.
Pensioners from different retirement-date "generations" under separate negotiated settlements are not automatically entitled to identical benefit formulas: courts will respect that collectively bargained package deals (each balancing distinct costs and benefits) can validly treat different cohorts of retirees differently, so long as each formula is internally rational and not arbitrary.
