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 Maruti car struck a gas tanker parked without lights or indicators in the middle of a national highway at night, killing the driver and his wife and injuring their two children, who were the appellant-claimants. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found the tanker driver solely negligent and awarded full compensation, but on appeal the Punjab & Haryana High Court held it was a case of "contributory negligence" by the deceased car driver too, and cut the enhanced compensation by 50%.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had reversed the Tribunal's well-reasoned factual finding "casually, if not cryptically and perversely," without identifying any specific flaw in the Tribunal's analysis of the eyewitness testimony and site plan, both of which showed the tanker was parked in the middle of the road without lights and the car driver could not have spotted it due to oncoming headlights. The Court reaffirmed that the standard of proof in motor accident claims is "preponderance of probability," not the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, and that the Tribunal had correctly applied it. It set aside the High Court's 50% contributory-negligence deduction and restored full enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,80,000 to the claimants.
Appellate courts cannot overturn a trial tribunal's factual findings in accident-compensation cases without pointing to a specific, concrete error in the evidence, and such claims are decided on probability, not the stricter criminal standard of proof.
