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 moreFollowing the devastating 2013 Uttarakhand floods, the Supreme Court in an earlier judgment (Alaknanda Hydro Power Co. Ltd. vs Anuj Joshi, (2014) 1 SCC 769) had directed the Ministry of Environment and Forests and the State of Uttarakhand not to grant any further environmental or forest clearance for hydroelectric projects in the state until further orders. The petitioners filed this contempt petition alleging that forest clearance for the Vishnugad-Pipalkoti hydro project had been granted to Tehri Hydro Development Corporation after that restraining order, in violation of the Court's directions. Two of the four named alleged contemnors were dropped by the petitioners themselves during the hearing.
The Court examined the actual timeline of approvals and found that the final approval for diverting the forest land in question had in fact been granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests on 25.04.2013, well before the Court's restraining order of 13.08.2013. The letter dated 06.12.2013, which the petitioners had pointed to as the supposed violation, was found to be merely a communication passing on a decision/conditions that had already been approved earlier; it did not reflect any fresh grant of clearance after the restraining order. On this basis, the Court held that the remaining two alleged contemnors had not violated its earlier directions and dismissed the contempt petition.
A contempt petition requires the petitioner to show an actual violation of a court's specific order after it was passed: a later administrative letter that merely communicates or implements an approval already granted earlier does not, by itself, amount to contempt.
