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 moreA process server who went to a Delhi police station to serve court summons and warrants alleged he was misbehaved with, made to stand with hands raised and sit on the floor for hours by the SHO, Inspector Devendra Kumar, before the documents were finally accepted. On a complaint routed through the District & Sessions Judge, a Magistrate ordered registration of an FIR against the SHO under Sections 186 (obstructing a public servant) and 341 (wrongful restraint) IPC. The SHO challenged this all the way to the Delhi High Court, arguing that Section 195 CrPC required a written complaint from the public servant himself (here, the process server) before a court could take cognizance of a Section 186 offence, and that the FIR route was barred.
The Supreme Court examined in detail the scope of Section 195(1)(a) and (b) CrPC, which restricts courts from taking cognizance of certain offences against public justice without a complaint by the concerned public servant or court. It held that Section 195 does not control or restrict the police's power to investigate an FIR at the investigation stage: the bar only kicks in when a court is about to take cognizance. It also clarified that where an FIR discloses offences distinct from those listed in Section 195(1)(a)(i), courts must apply a twin test: whether the additional offences were invoked merely to evade the Section 195 bar, and whether the facts, in substance, disclose only the barred offence. The Court left it open to the petitioner to raise the Section 195 bar before the trial court after investigation is complete and a chargesheet is filed.
Police can investigate and register an FIR even for conduct that overlaps with offences requiring a public servant's complaint (like obstructing an official): the special complaint requirement only becomes a bar at the stage a court is asked to take cognizance and put an accused on trial, not at the investigation stage.
