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-complainant, an income-tax practitioner, alleged that the respondent, his client, issued him a cheque for Rs. 15 lakh towards repayment of a "friendly loan," which was dishonoured twice for insufficient funds. The trial court and the first appellate court both convicted the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in revision, acquitted him, reasoning that the fiduciary (professional) relationship between the parties cast a heavier burden on the complainant to prove the loan was genuine.
The Supreme Court held that a revisional court cannot overturn concurrent factual findings of two courts below in the absence of a jurisdictional error, and that the High Court had misapplied Section 139 of the Act, which creates a rebuttable presumption that a cheque was issued for a debt once the signature is admitted: a presumption not displaced merely because the parties shared a fiduciary relationship. Since the respondent never denied signing the cheque or alleged theft or coercion, the burden to disprove the debt lay on him and was not discharged. The Court set aside the acquittal, restored the conviction, but modified the sentence to a fine of Rs. 16 lakh as compensation (with a default prison term reviving if unpaid), rather than imprisonment.
Once a person admits signing a cheque, the law presumes it was issued to repay a genuine debt, and the accused, not the complainant, bears the burden of proving otherwise; a mere professional or fiduciary relationship between the parties does not by itself overturn that presumption.
