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 moreThis batch of appeals arose from conflicting High Court rulings on whether foreign law firms and lawyers could practice in India. The Madras High Court (in A.K. Balaji's writ petition, which had impleaded 32 foreign law firms) had held that foreign lawyers could not practice law in India but could visit on a "fly in and fly out" basis for legal advice and could conduct international arbitration, while the Bombay High Court had separately held that the RBI was wrong to let foreign law firms open liaison offices and that "practice of law" covered non-litigious work too. The Bar Council of India, along with associations of Indian lawyers, challenged these rulings before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the practice of law includes both litigation and non-litigation work (such as giving legal opinions, drafting documents, and participating in legal conferences), and that foreign law firms or lawyers cannot practice law in India, on either the litigation or non-litigation side, without complying with the Advocates Act and Bar Council of India Rules, affirming this part of both High Courts' rulings. However, the Court modified the Madras High Court's "fly in and fly out" finding, holding that this exemption covers only casual, non-regular visits for giving advice, whether a visit crosses into "practice" is a fact-specific question the Bar Council of India can determine, and the Bar Council/Union Government may frame rules on this. Similarly, the Court held there is no absolute right for foreign lawyers to conduct arbitration in India, but they may do so where institutional arbitration rules or the Arbitration Act's provisions permit it, subject to India's professional code of conduct. On BPO companies, the Court held their regulatory status depends on the actual substance of their services, not merely their label: if those services amount in substance to legal practice, the Advocates Act applies regardless of what the company calls itself.
Foreign law firms and lawyers cannot set up practice in India, litigation or non-litigation, without following India's own regulatory framework for advocates, though occasional, non-regular visits purely to advise on foreign law remain permitted; and a business cannot escape India's legal-practice rules simply by labelling itself something else (like a BPO) if what it actually does amounts to practicing law.
