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 moreAshok Singh had advanced a loan of Rs. 22 lakh to the respondent's kin (the accused, respondent no.2), who issued a cheque for the amount that was later dishonoured with the endorsement "payment stopped by drawer." The Trial Court and Appellate Court both convicted the accused under Section 138 of the NI Act, but the Allahabad High Court set aside the conviction, holding that the complainant had failed to prove the debt was legally enforceable.
The Supreme Court restored the conviction, holding that once the accused admits his signature on the cheque, a statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act arises that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt, and the onus shifts to the accused to rebut it with credible evidence. The accused's defence, that the cheque had been lost, was found unconvincing because his police report about the loss was allegedly dated before the cheque was even presented, yet only reached the police a year later and was never converted into an FIR. The Court also held the complaint was maintainable even though the accused's partnership firm was not separately arrayed as an accused, since the accused himself was the signatory and person in charge. Considering the accused's age, the Court modified the sentence to a fine of Rs. 32 lakh instead of reviving the original jail term, with the fuller penalty to apply only if the fine is not paid within four months.
In cheque-bounce cases, admitting your signature on a dishonoured cheque triggers a legal presumption of debt that you must actively and credibly disprove: a vague or poorly-timed defence (like an unconvincing "lost cheque" story) will not be enough to escape liability.
