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 moreFollowing a violent altercation arising from a money-lending dispute in which the complainant's brother and others were attacked with a sword and sticks, two accused were granted bail by the trial court. The complainant challenged this bail before the Gujarat High Court, but since his application was technically filed under the provision meant for "cancellation" of bail (rather than challenging the grant itself), the High Court declined to interfere and instead told the complainant to raise his specific objection (an alleged breach of bail conditions) before the Sessions Court.
The Supreme Court examined the substance of the complainant's application and found that, despite being filed under the cancellation-of-bail provision, it actually raised grounds that the trial court had arbitrarily exercised its discretion in granting bail in the first place: a legally distinct and separate ground from cancellation (which requires supervening circumstances like witness-tampering or absconding). Since the High Court had proceeded on the mistaken premise that only cancellation was sought, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration on the correct footing, i.e., as a challenge to the legality of the bail grant itself.
A challenge to a bail order granted through improper exercise of judicial discretion is legally different from an application to cancel bail over subsequent misconduct, and courts must examine the actual substance of the grounds raised rather than just the label under which an application was filed.
