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 Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) had issued show-cause notices in 2006 to various commercial and residential complexes, including a mall developer, for operating without the mandatory environmental "consent to establish" and "consent to operate," and sought to impose monetary damages or bank guarantees as a condition. The Delhi High Court held that Pollution Control Boards had no power to impose such damages absent an explicit statutory penalty provision, and struck down the notices. DPCC appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reversed the High Court on the legal principle, holding that Sections 33A (Water Act) and 31A (Air Act), which let Boards issue directions to polluters, carry an implied, incidental power to impose and collect restitutionary or compensatory damages (fixed sums or bank guarantees) as a preventive, "ex-ante" measure, distinct in character from separate penal fines elsewhere in the Acts. However, since the specific 2006 notices in this case had already been set aside years earlier by both the Single Judge and Division Bench, the Court declined to revive them, and any amounts already collected were ordered refunded. It further directed that this power can only be exercised going forward once a proper procedure, incorporating principles of natural justice and transparency, is laid down in subordinate legislation.
Pollution Control Boards do have an inherent power to demand preventive financial security from polluters, separate from formal penalties, but that power cannot be exercised arbitrarily. It must follow a clear, rule-based, transparent procedure to be valid.
