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 appellant's husband died in a 1998 motor accident, and she engaged the respondent, an advocate, to pursue her compensation claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. After the claim succeeded, she paid him Rs. 10 lakhs in fees, but he later pressed her to sign a further cheque for Rs. 3 lakhs, claiming his fee was 16% of the total compensation awarded. When that cheque bounced, the advocate filed a criminal complaint against her under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (dishonour of cheque), and the Telangana High Court declined to quash the proceedings, holding that fee rules were only for guidance and did not bar charging more.
The Supreme Court held that an advocate charging a fee calculated as a percentage of the litigation's outcome is itself against professional ethics and public policy (contrary to Rule 20 of the Standard of Professional Conduct, and to Section 23 of the Contract Act which voids agreements against public policy), relying on its own precedents like R.D. Saxena v. Balram Prasad Sharma and V.C. Rangadurai v. D. Gopalan on the highly fiduciary nature of the lawyer-client relationship. Since the cheque was issued to satisfy such an unenforceable, unethical fee claim, no presumption of a legally enforceable debt could arise under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the Section 138 criminal proceedings against the appellant amounted to an abuse of process and were quashed, even though the advocate later tried to withdraw his complaint, the Court refused to let him escape scrutiny for the underlying misconduct and left that issue to the appropriate disciplinary forum. The Court went further to flag the broader, systemic problem of unregulated and excessive advocate fees as a barrier to access to justice, urging the government to act on the Law Commission's recommendations for regulating legal fees.
A lawyer cannot lawfully charge a fee that is simply a cut of the client's winnings (a "contingency fee" based on the outcome), and a cheque signed to cover such an improper fee demand cannot be used to criminally prosecute the client for its dishonour: clients facing this kind of pressure from their own lawyer have a recognised legal defence.
