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 moreB.N. John managed a hostel run by an NGO for underprivileged children. He claimed the raid on the hostel by officials, allegedly checking compliance with the Juvenile Justice Act, was instigated by a person with whom he had personal disputes and prior litigation. During the raid, officials alleged the appellant and his party assaulted them, leading to an FIR under Section 353 IPC (assault to deter a public servant from duty), to which Section 186 IPC (obstructing a public servant) was later added. A chargesheet was filed, the Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons, and the Allahabad High Court refused to quash the proceedings, partly relying on an earlier, unrelated dismissal of a co-accused's similar plea.
The Supreme Court held that Section 353 IPC requires an actual allegation of assault or criminal force used to deter a public servant, and the FIR here disclosed no such ingredients, so it did not constitute a cognizable offence to justify police investigation in the first place. It further held that Section 186 IPC, added later, cannot be taken cognizance of without a prior written complaint by the concerned public servant as mandated by Section 195(1) CrPC, and no such complaint existed here. Since the very foundation of the case (the FIR) did not disclose a cognizable offence, all consequent proceedings, including the chargesheet, cognizance, and summons, were vitiated ("sublato fundamento cadit opus". Once the foundation is removed, the structure falls). The Court also clarified that an earlier in-limine dismissal of a co-accused's SLP does not amount to a binding precedent under Article 141, so it could not stand in the way of deciding this appeal on its own merits. Accordingly, the Court quashed the FIR, chargesheet, cognizance order, summons, and the High Court's order.
Criminal proceedings built on an FIR that does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence alleged cannot be sustained merely because a chargesheet was filed and cognizance taken later. Courts can and should quash such proceedings at any stage, and a mere in-limine (non-speaking) dismissal of another accused's similar petition does not bind or foreclose examination of the merits in a separate case.
