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 moreA Dubai-based ship-repair company had repaired a vessel and was owed money by the vessel's owner. As part of a settlement, Archean Industries (which had chartered the vessel to carry granite) agreed to pay USD 100,000 out of the freight it owed the vessel owner directly to the repair company, and issued a "Corporate Guarantee" to that effect. Archean instructed its banker, Canara Bank, to remit this sum to the repair company's account, but the bank mistakenly transferred the money to the vessel owner's account in the US instead. When the repair company sued both Archean and the bank for the unpaid amount, the trial court and then the High Court of Madras held Archean liable to the plaintiff, while also granting Archean a "third-party" decree against the bank for its error.
The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals: one by Archean challenging its primary liability, and one by Canara Bank challenging the third-party decree against it. The Court held that Archean's own Corporate Guarantee made it liable to the plaintiff regardless of any RBI approval issue (which was in any case never pleaded), and that its remedy against the actual wrongdoer (the vessel owner) remained separately available under Section 140 of the Contract Act. On the bank's appeal, the Court held that once Archean gave clear remittance instructions, the bank was bound to follow them or seek clarification, and could not unilaterally redirect the funds to the vessel owner: the bank was not a party to the charter agreement and could not rely on its terms to justify the error. The Court also upheld the use of the summary third-party procedure under Order VIII-A CPC to resolve the bank's liability within the same suit, rejecting the argument that the plaintiff should have separately impleaded the vessel owner, since a plaintiff (dominus litis) cannot be compelled to add parties it hasn't chosen to sue.
A bank that receives clear remittance instructions from its customer must either follow them precisely or seek clarification. It cannot substitute its own judgment and redirect funds elsewhere, and doing so makes it liable to indemnify its customer for the resulting loss. A plaintiff is entitled to choose whom to sue, and defendants cannot force it to implead other potentially liable parties.
