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 had supplied bunkers and other "necessaries" worth US$94,611.25 to a vessel, M.V. Nikolaos-S, at the port of Durban in 1999, which went unpaid. It filed an admiralty suit in the Calcutta High Court and had the vessel arrested when it later docked at Haldia, but the arrest was lifted after the appellant was told an out-of-court settlement had been reached. The vessel was subsequently sold through a chain of transactions and ultimately came to be owned by the respondent, who resisted the claim on the ground that it had purchased the vessel without notice of the dues. The trial court decreed the claim in the appellant's favour, but the High Court reversed this, holding the respondent was a bona fide purchaser whose ownership predated any enforceable claim.
The Supreme Court examined whether a claim for "necessaries" supplied to a ship creates a maritime lien (which travels with the vessel regardless of ownership change) or only a maritime claim/statutory right of action in rem (which can be defeated by a genuine sale to a purchaser without notice), concluding it is the latter. On the facts, however, the Court found that the respondent had failed to prove the chain of sale by which it claimed to have acquired the vessel: the documents relied upon (a notarised bill of sale, Letter of Credit payment, and intermediate transfers) were inconsistent, undated correctly, or contradicted by the respondent's own pleadings in a separate suit alleging fraud against its seller. Since the respondent could not establish it was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice at the time of arrest, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the trial court's decree in favour of the appellant for recovery of US$94,611.25 (equivalent to Rs. 42,57,500) from the security furnished in court.
A claim for supplies/necessaries to a ship is enforceable against the vessel unless a subsequent purchaser can clearly prove a genuine, well-documented chain of title acquired without notice of the pending claim: vague or contradictory sale documentation will not protect a buyer from an earlier creditor's claim.
