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, a Development Officer at LIC, was convicted for forging documents and conspiring to fraudulently obtain settlement of two insurance claims by falsely showing the insured person as dead, along with related corruption charges. Both the trial court and the Gauhati High Court upheld his conviction. When the Supreme Court initially issued notice on his appeal, it limited the scope to just two questions (whether the anti-corruption charge could stand, and whether the sentence was appropriate) not whether he was guilty at all.
The Court first resolved a procedural question: even though notice had been limited to specific issues, it held it retained discretion to hear the appellant on all points if justice demanded, citing several precedents on Article 142 and the Court's inherent power to do complete justice. Having heard full arguments, the Court found no reason to disturb the conviction on the merits: the evidence, including the insured man's testimony and the appellant's unexplained handling of blank cheques, supported the finding of guilt under both IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, on sentencing, the Court noted the appellant had already served roughly two-thirds of his 36-month term and reduced his sentence to time already served, while keeping the conviction intact.
Even when the Supreme Court grants only a "limited notice" confined to specific legal questions, it retains the discretion to examine the case more broadly if fairness requires it: a technical limitation on notice is not always the last word on what can be argued.
