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 moreThe appellant, a Chief Manager at Central Bank of India, was served a disciplinary charge for irregularities in sanctioning loans at his branch. He retired during the pending inquiry, but the disciplinary proceedings continued and ultimately resulted in a finding against him; the bank imposed compulsory retirement and later reduced his pension to two-thirds of the full amount, done by a Field General Manager while his appeal was pending. The Patna High Court upheld this reduction (while separately ordering release of his gratuity), leading to his appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court interpreted Regulation 33 of the Bank's Pension Regulations and held that where the very authority exercising disciplinary, appellate or reviewing power decides to reduce pension below the full amount, it must first consult the Bank's Board of Directors: a mandatory safeguard that was never followed here, and the appellant was also never given a hearing on the alleged Rs. 3.26 crore loss used to justify the cut. Finding no evidence of the claimed loss was ever placed before the disciplinary or appellate authorities, the Court declined the bank's request to use Article 142 to endorse the reduction anyway. It set aside the pension cut and the High Court's judgment, giving the bank two months to redo the process properly, with a hearing and Board consultation, failing which the appellant would be entitled to full pension from the date of his retirement.
Pension is a constitutionally protected property right (Article 300A), not a discretionary bounty, and an employer cannot cut it without strictly following the mandatory procedural safeguards, such as a hearing for the employee and consultation with the appropriate governing body.
