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 moreU.P. Jal Nigam's Chief Engineer had declared the appointments of 122 candidates (Assistant Engineers, selected via a 2016 notification) void ab initio, following a Board decision that the selection process was tainted. The Allahabad High Court quashed that order, holding that it violated natural justice because no individual notice or hearing was given, and because the authority had not shown it was impossible to separate tainted from untainted candidates before cancelling all 122 appointments en masse. The Nigam's first Supreme Court challenge to this had already been disposed of in 2018 on a narrower point (reworking the merit list), without disturbing the High Court's core conclusion; it now challenged that core conclusion itself, along with the dismissal of its review application, relying on fresh expert opinions obtained later.
The Supreme Court held that the Nigam's earlier, narrower Special Leave Petition had neither disturbed the High Court's conclusion nor given it liberty to reopen that conclusion later via review or a fresh petition. On the merits, it found that the Chief Engineer's 2017 order had not actually undertaken the exercise of showing it was impossible to distinguish tainted from untainted candidates: a prerequisite, per the Court's own precedents, before an entire selection can be cancelled without individual notice. The fresh expert opinions the Nigam now relied on were not available to the original decision-maker and could not retroactively cure that defect. The challenge to the High Court's judgment accordingly failed, but the Court clarified that the Nigam remains free to pass a fresh, reasoned order (considering the available material) after following due process, and expressed no opinion on the merits of any future action. The appeals were disposed of on these terms, with no costs.
Before an employer can cancel an entire batch of appointments over an allegedly tainted selection process without giving individual notice to each affected person, it must first demonstrate, at the time of its original decision, that distinguishing tainted from untainted candidates was genuinely impossible; this cannot be patched up later with fresh expert evidence gathered after the fact.
