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 husband and wife married in 2009 and moved to the USA, where they had a son in 2010. In 2012 the husband filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty and adultery; the Family Court granted divorce on the ground of cruelty in 2016, but the High Court of Madras reversed this in 2018, restoring the marriage. By then the husband had already remarried in 2017, and the couple had been living apart since 2010.
The Supreme Court noted that court-ordered mediation had failed and that the husband had invoked Article 142 of the Constitution seeking dissolution. Finding no possibility of reconciliation after nearly 15 years of separation, and noting the husband's remarriage, the Court held the marriage had irretrievably broken down and exercised its special Article 142 power to dissolve it. It set aside the High Court's order and, since the husband had provided no financial support for years, directed him to pay Rs. 1.25 crore as one-time permanent alimony to the wife and son in five quarterly instalments, with the divorce decree conditional on that payment (and forfeiture of amounts paid if any instalment is missed).
The Supreme Court can dissolve a marriage under Article 142 even where lower courts disagree on fault, when the marriage has irretrievably broken down in fact, but such relief is often conditioned on fair financial provision for the other spouse.
