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 respondent had issued two cheques to the appellant, for Rs. 2,00,000 and Rs. 50,00,000, both of which were dishonoured. The trial court convicted the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment along with a fine of double the cheque amounts; this conviction was upheld on appeal. However, the Karnataka High Court, exercising what it wrongly treated as appellate (rather than revisional) power, modified the sentence to require only repayment of the cheque amounts, with no prison term and no interest: effectively letting the respondent off without real punishment ten years after the cheques bounced. The appellant-complainant challenged this before the Supreme Court as unjust.
The Supreme Court found the High Court's order "prima facie perverse and erroneous," noting the respondent's own counsel could not defend it. Rather than deciding the matter purely on legal merits, the Court used several hearings to press the respondent toward an out-of-court settlement, ultimately recording the respondent's undertaking (through counsel) to pay Rs. 45,00,000 in full and final settlement by 31 August 2026, which the appellant agreed to accept. The Court set aside the High Court's "wholly perverse and manifestly erroneous" judgment and allowed the appeals, while making clear that if the respondent failed to pay as promised, the appellant could apply to revive the appeals, at which point the Court would consider sending the respondent to prison outright.
A High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction in a Section 138 cheque-bounce case cannot simply let a convicted accused off with mere repayment of the cheque amount and no penal consequence; the Supreme Court will correct such leniency, and a settlement reached under the Court's supervision carries the explicit threat of imprisonment if not honoured.
