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 appellants, claiming a beneficial interest (through their power of attorney holder) in certain shares of Star Health Insurance Company that were registered in the names of other respondents, filed a suit before the Madras High Court seeking a declaration of that beneficial interest. They obtained leave to sue there under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent on the ground that part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. The defendants applied to revoke that leave, contesting the Madras High Court's territorial jurisdiction; a Single Judge rejected the challenge, but a Division Bench reversed this and rejected the plaint for want of jurisdiction, which the appellants then challenged before the Supreme Court in thirteen connected appeals.
The Supreme Court confined itself to the limited jurisdictional question of whether the Madras High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Examining the underlying facts, the dispute arose from a decision of a foreign (Dubai-based) corporate group to deconsolidate and remove the beneficial-interest status over the shares, the Court found that the appellants' real grievance was an indirect challenge to that foreign group's own decision, in which they had themselves participated, and that the relief sought against the India-based defendant was merely consequential. Since the core dispute and the parties with the primary interest were situated outside the Court's jurisdiction and the essential cause of action did not genuinely arise in Chennai, the Court agreed with the Division Bench that the suit was not maintainable there. It found no merit in the appeals and dismissed all thirteen of them.
A litigant cannot manufacture territorial jurisdiction for a court by suing a party only consequentially connected to a dispute, when the real controversy and the principal parties are situated entirely outside that court's jurisdiction.
