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 moreEmployees of various electricity-distribution cooperative societies in Madhya Pradesh were absorbed into the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board (MPSEB) in 2002 when the financially struggling societies were dissolved and merged into the Board. A long-running, tangled set of writ petitions and appeals followed over whether these absorbed employees were entitled to pension on par with regular MPSEB employees, and if so, whether their years of service in the society (before absorption) should count toward the pension. A Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court ultimately held the employees were not entitled to MPSEB-style pension at all, prompting appeals by the affected employees.
The Supreme Court held that once the societies' employees were absorbed and functionally integrated into MPSEB, they could not be treated as a separate, lesser class from regular MPSEB employees purely because of their origin - denying them pension altogether would be unjust discrimination, especially since similarly placed employees in an earlier round of litigation had already been granted pension. Invoking its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice and avoid disparity among similarly situated employees, the Court ruled that all absorbed employees are entitled to pension, but - applying the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules - their qualifying service for pension purposes would count only from the date of absorption into MPSEB, not from their earlier service with the society (since that earlier service was not under government-regulated pay and conditions). The appeals were allowed to this extent, with pension and arrears to be paid within four months.
When employees of a dissolved body are absorbed into a government entity, they are generally entitled to the same core benefits (like pension) as regular employees of that entity, but time served before absorption may not automatically count toward pension eligibility unless it was rendered under government-regulated service conditions.
