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 moreManmeet Singh Mattewal lost his wife, Charanpreet Kaur, and newborn son within hours of each other during delivery at Deep Nursing Home, Chandigarh. He and his surviving son complained of medical negligence against the nursing home and the treating obstetrician, Dr. Kanwarjit Kochhar. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission found the doctor negligent in the mother's treatment (though not for the infant's death) and awarded about ₹20.26 lakh, largely payable by the insurer. On appeal, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) upheld the finding of liability but on entirely new grounds not raised by either side.
The Supreme Court held that the NCDRC had exceeded its jurisdiction by effectively building a new case for the complainants based on grounds and evidence never pleaded or argued by them, which is impermissible: a party is entitled to know and meet the actual case against it. Since multiple independent medical boards had found no negligence in the delivery and post-delivery treatment, and that finding had attained finality (no separate appeal was filed against it by the complainants), the entire consumer complaint could not survive on a case invented afterward by the NCDRC. The Court set aside the NCDRC's and the State Commission's orders and dismissed the original complaint, while directing the complainant to refund the compensation amount already received, in instalments, to the doctor and the insurance company.
In legal proceedings, a decision-making body (court, tribunal, or consumer commission) cannot decide a case on a theory or ground that was never argued or put to the other side, doing so denies a fair chance to respond, and such a decision cannot stand even if the underlying tragedy is a genuine one.
