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 was attacked and filed an FIR alleging assault by several persons over a business rivalry; the original investigating police filed a final report calling the case "a mistake of fact," which the Magistrate accepted over the appellant's protest petition. After a series of revisions, the Madras High Court remitted the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Nagercoil, who found the earlier investigation biased and directed the CBCID (a different agency) to re-investigate under Section 173(8) CrPC. On further revision, the High Court's Single Judge annulled that CJM order, holding there were no exceptional circumstances justifying reinvestigation, prompting the informant-appellant's appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined the distinction between "further investigation" (which a Magistrate can direct, ordinarily to be carried out by the same investigating agency) and "reinvestigation" or transfer of investigation to an entirely different agency, which is a power reserved for superior courts under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226, to be used sparingly. Relying on its own precedent in Vinay Tyagi, the Court held the CJM was right to direct further investigation but had exceeded his jurisdiction by directing a different agency (CBCID) to carry it out. It therefore set aside the High Court's order except insofar as the High Court had itself held that the Magistrate could not hand the case to another agency, and clarified that the further investigation must be carried out by the originally investigating agency, under the supervision of the Superintendent of Police, with the resulting report to go before the CJM. The Court expressly did not comment on any factual aspect of the underlying assault case itself.
A Magistrate can direct the police to carry out "further investigation" into a case, but only a superior court (High Court under Article 226/Section 482 CrPC, not a Magistrate) has the power to transfer an investigation to a different agency or order a full "reinvestigation", and that power itself is to be used sparingly.
