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, an Air Force Wing Commander, was granted two years of study leave on the condition (recorded in a Service Guarantee Certificate) that he would serve nine years after returning. He returned to service but sought premature retirement on health grounds before completing nine years, and the Air Force recovered the full pay and allowances he had drawn during the study leave period. The Armed Forces Tribunal rejected his challenge to this recovery, finding that his premature retirement application itself showed career dissatisfaction, not illness, as the real reason for leaving.
The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that illness was not the genuine ground for premature retirement. On the separate legal question of whether the recovery should have been only proportionate (since he had served over 6 years of the required 9), the Court held that this was not a liquidated-damages clause under contract law but a conditional statutory entitlement under Army Instructions: the pay during leave was given strictly on condition of completing nine years' service, and no proportionate-refund mechanism existed in the governing rules. Since the appellant never challenged the validity of the underlying Army Instruction, and failed to substantiate his discrimination argument with proper pleadings, the appeal was dismissed.
Benefits granted conditionally under service rules (like study leave pay tied to a future service commitment) are not automatically subject to "proportionate" refund on breach unless the rules themselves provide for it: an employee challenging a recovery must also challenge the validity of the underlying rule, not just its application.
