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 appellant's enrolment as an advocate (originally in Himachal Pradesh, later transferred to Rajasthan) was cancelled by the Bar Council of India in 1995 after it found he had suppressed facts, including a prior government service and a criminal case, at the time of enrolment, a cancellation the Supreme Court itself had earlier upheld. He then made several fresh attempts over the following years to get re-enrolled as an advocate in Rajasthan, each of which was rejected by the Bar Council of Rajasthan and confirmed by the Bar Council of India. He challenged these rejections in two connected appeals before the Supreme Court.
The Court held that the suppression found against the appellant at the time of his original enrolment, concerning his government service and a criminal case, justified cancellation under Section 26 of the Advocates Act, which empowers the Bar Council of India to remove a person from the roll of advocates obtained by misrepresentation. It held that a later acquittal in the criminal case did not erase the original suppression, and that the appellant's repeated fresh applications for enrolment amounted to an abuse of process given the Supreme Court had already affirmed the cancellation once. Both appeals were dismissed, upholding the orders of the Bar Councils of Rajasthan and India refusing re-enrolment.
Concealing material facts (such as prior employment or a pending criminal matter) while seeking professional enrolment can lead to permanent cancellation, and a later acquittal does not retroactively cure a misrepresentation made at the time of the original application.
