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 respondent was appointed as a temporary, ad-hoc Lecturer in Home Economics at a college run by the appellant society, with her appointment letter explicitly stating her services could be terminated without notice if her performance was unsatisfactory. After two academic years, her services were terminated for unsatisfactory performance, and she unsuccessfully challenged this before the College Tribunal and then a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court. However, a Division Bench of the High Court (on intra-court appeal) set aside her termination, holding it was effectively "stigmatic" (casting a slur on her reputation) because it referenced a negative report from the Principal, and treating her as if she were a probationer whose probation had been deemed completed.
The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench had gone beyond the actual scope of the dispute, since the respondent's appointment was purely ad-hoc, not a probationary appointment, and the employer had expressly reserved the right to terminate for unsatisfactory work. Relying on a line of its own precedents (including Radhey Shyam Gupta and Pavanendra Narayan Verma), the Court reiterated that terminating a temporary employee's service based on an assessment that their work was unsatisfactory is not "punitive" or stigmatic merely because an adverse opinion about their work was recorded: such an assessment is only the "motive," not the legal "foundation," for a simple termination, and does not require a full disciplinary inquiry. Finding the Principal's comments were about work performance and not misconduct or moral turpitude, the Court held the Division Bench's order was legally unsustainable, set it aside, and allowed the appeal, restoring the termination.
An employer can validly end a temporary/ad-hoc employee's service for unsatisfactory performance, under a term reserving that right, without it being treated as a punitive "dismissal" requiring a formal disciplinary inquiry, so long as the stated reason concerns work quality, not misconduct or character, and the employee was never on formal probation with a right to be confirmed.
