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 moreTwo daily-wage workers of the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation, engaged in 1971 and 1973, were terminated from service in 1979. A 1995 Labour Court award held their termination illegal and directed that they be treated as continuing in service, entitled to salary and benefits. After being paid dues up to 2014 in 2016, they sought further wages for the period 2015 to 2018, claiming entitlement to continue working until 2023: a claim the Deputy Labour Commissioner accepted and the Allahabad High Court upheld.
The Supreme Court allowed the Corporation's appeal and set aside both the High Court's and the Labour Commissioner's orders. It reasoned that the workers, having joined service as adults in 1971 and 1973, would have already reached the retirement age of 60 by around 2013-2015, making their claim to have still been in service through 2018 (based on a claimed age of just 55 that year) mathematically implausible, since it would mean they joined service as children. Neither the Labour Commissioner nor the High Court had checked this basic arithmetic before granting the extra payment.
Even claims backed by an earlier tribunal award must hold up to basic factual scrutiny, such as a person's likely age and statutory retirement date, before authorities grant further monetary relief; courts and quasi-judicial bodies cannot mechanically accept a claim without testing whether it is even chronologically possible.
