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 involved in a business dispute over a cheque and was eventually declared a "proclaimed offender" in 2016 after failing to appear before a magistrate in a cheque-related complaint case. Years later, after being arrested under that proclamation order, an FIR was also lodged against him under Section 174A IPC (the offence of not appearing when summoned by a proclamation). He sought to quash all these proceedings, but the High Court refused, and he appealed to the Supreme Court. By the time the appeal was heard, the underlying cheque case against him had ended in his acquittal.
The Court examined whether Section 174A IPC (punishing failure to appear under a Section 82 CrPC proclamation) can survive independently once the underlying proclamation itself has been nullified by later developments, such as an acquittal. It held that Section 174A creates a standalone, independent offence: the moment a person fails to appear as required, the offence is complete, and prosecution for it does not automatically end just because the original case or the proclamation is later withdrawn. However, on the specific facts here (the appellant had since been acquitted, the dispute had been financially settled, and the original 2010 offence was old) the Court found no continuing purpose in keeping him branded a "proclaimed offender" and quashed all proceedings against him, including the Section 174A FIR.
Being declared a "proclaimed offender" or facing charges for not appearing in court can, in principle, continue to have legal consequences even after the original case ends, but courts retain discretion to close such follow-on proceedings when the underlying dispute has genuinely been resolved and continuing them would serve no real purpose.
