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 moreA recruitment notification issued by the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection for the post of Agricultural Field Officer required a degree in "Agro-Forestry." The private respondents (including Aarya K. Babu, provisionally selected by Bank of India, and another candidate selected by Syndicate Bank) held degrees in "Forestry" instead, and their selections were cancelled for not meeting the prescribed qualification. The Kerala High Court's Single Judge and then Division Bench had ruled in the candidates' favour, holding that "Forestry" was equivalent to "Agro-Forestry," prompting the banks to appeal to the Supreme Court. Since both appeals raised the identical question and had been disposed of by the Kerala High Court through a common order, the Supreme Court heard and decided them together.
The Supreme Court held that courts should not substitute their own view on equivalence of educational qualifications for that of the recruiting authority, relying on the Constitution Bench ruling in Mohammad Shujat Ali vs. Union of India. Since "Forestry" was only later added as an equivalent qualification by a corrigendum issued after the selection process had concluded, that later inclusion could not retrospectively validate candidates who did not hold the originally required qualification. The Court therefore set aside the High Court's judgments and allowed both appeals, while clarifying this would not disturb similarly-qualified officers already continued in service elsewhere. However, invoking its special Article 142 power to do complete justice, the Court directed Bank of India to separately give Aarya K. Babu a fresh appointment as Agricultural Field Officer (without back benefits), citing her personal hardship: an exception made clear not to be treated as a precedent.
Courts generally defer to expert recruiting bodies on technical questions like equivalence of educational qualifications, and a later relaxation of eligibility criteria does not retroactively benefit candidates who failed to meet the original criteria, though the Supreme Court can still grant individualized relief in deserving cases using its special constitutional powers.
