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 took a 25-year LIC life insurance policy in 1993 for a sum assured of Rs 75,000, paying quarterly premiums. After paying premiums for about 7 years 9 months and taking a policy loan of Rs 15,000, he stopped paying premiums and sought the surrender value. LIC calculated and paid him only Rs 2,268 after loan deductions, applying a "surrender value factor" of 32.92% to both the paid-up value and the vested bonus. The District Consumer Forum and the State Commission ruled in the appellant's favour, holding he was owed a larger sum (Rs 29,888), but the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reversed this, prompting the appellant's appeal to the Supreme Court.
The core dispute was whether the appellant was entitled to the full value of his vested bonus or only its discounted "surrender value" under Section 113 of the Insurance Act, 1938 and Condition 7 of the policy. The Court explained that a life insurance surrender value is never equal to the full premiums paid, since premiums build a collective reserve/fund shared across policyholders, and surrendering early only entitles a holder to a share of that reserve, not full premium return. The Court found LIC's methodology, applying the actuarially-approved 32.92% surrender value factor to the total paid-up value (premiums paid plus vested bonus), was consistent with the approved formula under the LIC Regulations, 1959 and with Section 113 and Condition 7 of the policy. Finding no error in LIC's computation, the Supreme Court held there was no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, with no order as to costs.
A life insurance policyholder who surrenders a policy before maturity is only entitled to a proportionate "surrender value" (both on premiums and on any vested bonus) as calculated by an insurer-approved actuarial formula, not the full premiums paid or the full bonus that would have accrued had the policy run its full term.
