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 criminal complaint accused the appellant of criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) for retaining a Rs. 1 crore security deposit paid under a 1993 property development agreement that could not be completed because later building regulations barred high-rise construction on the Lutyens-zone plot. The Delhi High Court had refused to quash the FIR, holding the petition premature since investigation was still underway; during the appeal's pendency, police filed a chargesheet, and the appellants amended their plea to seek quashing of that chargesheet too.
The Supreme Court held that a Section 482 petition to quash an FIR does not become untenable merely because a chargesheet has since been filed: if anything, the abuse of process is aggravated once an unsustainable FIR matures into a chargesheet. On the merits, the Court held that retaining a security deposit under an agreement, where the deposit's repayment trigger (handing over the owner's share of the building) had never occurred, and the complainant had never even demanded its return, could not amount to criminal breach of trust, since the money was never "entrusted" property that was dishonestly misused. Finding the dispute was essentially a civil one over a commercial agreement, improperly dressed up as a criminal case to pressure the appellants, the Court quashed both the FIR and the chargesheet and allowed the appeal.
Courts can and will intervene to quash a clearly civil, contractual dispute that has been given a criminal colour: the existence of a chargesheet does not insulate a baseless criminal case from being thrown out.
