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 moreIn the first appeal, several complainants' power-of-attorney holder filed cheque-dishonour complaints against A.C. Narayanan (managing director of a company) that never actually referenced or exhibited a Power of Attorney in the complaint record; the trial court nevertheless issued process and the High Court upheld it. In the second, tagged-along appeal, a company's complaint under Section 138 had been signed and pursued by an employee holding a General Power of Attorney who was not himself authorised by the company's board resolution to file such complaints; the trial court acquitted the accused but the High Court reversed that acquittal. Both appeals turned on a common legal question already referred to and decided by a three-judge Bench in an earlier round of the same litigation (A.C. Narayanan vs State of Maharashtra, 2013).
Applying the larger Bench's 2013 ruling, the Court reiterated that a Power of Attorney holder can file and pursue a Section 138 complaint on behalf of the payee, but only if the complaint itself explicitly asserts the attorney holder's personal knowledge of the transaction and the power of attorney is properly placed on record. In A.C. Narayanan's case, since the complaint record contained no genuine reference to any Power of Attorney and the verification statement never claimed to be made as an attorney holder, the Magistrate had wrongly taken cognizance, so the complaint and all consequent proceedings were quashed. In the Kamalakar case, since the complaint had been signed by a mere employee who was never authorised by the company's resolution to file complaints (only the Managing Director/Directors were so authorised, with power to nominate representatives, which was not properly done here), the trial court's original acquittal was correct and the High Court's reversal of it was itself set aside.
A cheque-bounce complaint filed through someone else's Power of Attorney will fail unless that attorney holder's personal knowledge of the transaction is explicitly stated in the complaint and the power of attorney is properly placed on the court record: a bare mention in the case title is not enough, and a company must ensure the complaint is filed or properly delegated by someone actually authorised by its board.
