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 moreIn 1987, a Central Excise Superintendent filed a criminal complaint against Reliance Industries Ltd. for evasion of excise duty by wrongly taking credit without following the procedure under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules. Years later, after Rule 56A was omitted by notification in 1994, the respondent sought discharge on the ground that the rule underlying the charge no longer existed; the trial court rejected this and framed charges in 2013, but the Gujarat High Court, in revision, quashed the charge, holding that since Rule 56A was omitted without a saving clause, the prosecution could not continue.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred by focusing only on the procedural Rule 56A governing how credit could be availed, when the actual charge was substantive evasion of excise duty under Section 9 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944: an offence that remained intact and unaffected by the later omission of the procedural rule. The Court reasoned that the ingredient of the offence was the act of evasion itself, and the prosecution could not be deprived of the opportunity to prove that evasion merely because a procedural credit-taking rule was later omitted. It therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the trial court's order framing charges, without needing to rule on the broader rival arguments about Section 6 of the General Clauses Act and retrospective validation.
The later repeal or omission of a procedural rule does not automatically wipe out a criminal charge where the underlying substantive offence (such as duty evasion) is defined independently of that rule: courts will look at what the offence actually consists of, not just the rule used to describe the mechanics of the violation.
