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 moreThis case was heard together with two other appeals raising a common legal question: can gratuity be forfeited for termination on grounds of misconduct amounting to an offence involving moral turpitude, even without any criminal conviction or proceeding? In the lead appeal, Western Coal Fields Limited (a public sector undertaking) had dismissed the respondent employee after departmental proceedings found he had obtained his job using a fraudulent date-of-birth certificate. He had understated his age by seven years to secure the appointment. The employee argued he had served about 22 years unblemished and that gratuity was a statutory right that could not be denied on termination; lower forums (relying on an earlier Supreme Court ruling, Union Bank of India v. C.G. Ajay Babu) had held forfeiture impermissible without a criminal conviction.
The Supreme Court clarified that Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act only requires that the misconduct constitute an offence involving moral turpitude. It does not require an actual criminal conviction or even that criminal proceedings be initiated. Relying on its earlier ruling in Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal, the Court held that suppressing material information (here, the true date of birth) to fraudulently obtain an appointment itself amounts to an offence involving moral turpitude, and since the very appointment was obtained illegally, the employee could not claim gratuity as "fruits of his employment." The Court fully upheld forfeiture of the employee's entire gratuity in this case. In the connected MSRTC appeals involving bus conductors who had misappropriated small amounts of passenger fares, the Court found their misconduct also involved moral turpitude but directed a more sympathetic approach, capping forfeiture at 25% of their gratuity rather than the full amount.
An employee who obtains a job through fraud (such as falsifying a date-of-birth certificate) can lose his entire gratuity on dismissal even without a criminal conviction, because gratuity forfeiture under the law only requires proof that the misconduct amounts to an offence involving moral turpitude: years of otherwise good service will not override a fraudulently obtained appointment.
