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, an IT consultant who had developed the application software for Kerala's "FRIENDS" e-governance bill-collection project on behalf of Microsoft (which had been engaged by the State), challenged a 2002 government notification under Section 70(1) of the Information Technology Act declaring the FRIENDS computer system a "protected system." He also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 70 itself, claiming he held copyright in the software he had developed. His writ petition, writ appeal, and review petition were all dismissed by the Kerala High Court, leading to this appeal.
The Supreme Court examined Section 70 of the IT Act (including its 2009 amendment narrowing the power to declare "protected systems" to critical information infrastructure) and found the government's notification power was validly and narrowly exercised. On the copyright claim, the Court held that under Section 17(a) of the Copyright Act, since the appellant had developed the software as work commissioned and paid for by Microsoft (by his own pleaded case), he could not claim to be the "first owner" of copyright in it: that claim was "palpably unfounded" on his own version of events. Finding no ground to interfere with the High Court's orders, the Supreme Court affirmed them and dismissed the appeal, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
A developer who creates software for a client under a commission or employment-like arrangement generally does not personally own the copyright in that work under Section 17(a) of the Copyright Act: ownership follows the commissioning/paying party, not merely the person who wrote the code.
