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 moreAtomberg Technologies launched a water purifier and was allegedly warned by a competitor, Eureka Forbes, that the product infringed Eureka Forbes's patents: warnings Atomberg says were made "groundlessly" to its own distributors, causing it business harm. Atomberg sued Eureka Forbes for these "groundless threats" in the Bombay High Court on 1 July 2025. Six days later, Eureka Forbes sued Atomberg for actual patent infringement in the Delhi High Court, basing Delhi's jurisdiction on the fact that Eureka Forbes had bought and had a sample of Atomberg's product delivered there. Each side then asked the Supreme Court to transfer the other's suit to their own preferred city, so both disputes could be heard together.
The Supreme Court held that a suit for "groundless threats" of patent infringement (under Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970) is a legally independent cause of action from a suit for actual infringement, since Parliament deliberately removed a proviso (present in the old 1911 law) that would have barred a groundless-threats suit whenever a real infringement suit was also pending. The Court found that the Bombay suit was filed first, the parties had their registered offices in Mumbai, and the two suits raised substantially overlapping facts and legal issues about the same product, creating a real risk of two courts reaching conflicting conclusions on the same set of facts. Applying precedent that overlapping suits with common issues should be tried together to avoid duplicated evidence and inconsistent decrees, the Court transferred Eureka Forbes's Delhi infringement suit to the Bombay High Court to be heard alongside Atomberg's suit, and dismissed Eureka Forbes's competing request to move the Bombay suit to Delhi.
When two closely related lawsuits between the same parties over the same underlying dispute are filed in different High Courts, the Supreme Court can and will consolidate them in one court, generally favoring the court where the earlier suit was filed, to avoid wasted judicial time and the risk of contradictory verdicts.
