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-husband and respondent-wife married in 2000 and had two children, but drifted apart over the years and began living separately from 2022-23, after which the husband filed a divorce petition. Court-referred mediation produced a comprehensive settlement in May 2024 covering a large lump-sum alimony payment (about ₹1.5 crore), a PPF passbook handover, a gift deed, funds for a car, jewellery, and an express mutual undertaking to never institute future civil or criminal proceedings against each other over the marriage. Despite this, the wife later filed a Domestic Violence Act complaint against the husband and his mother, and the Delhi High Court allowed those proceedings to continue on an interim basis, subject to her depositing ₹89 lakh, prompting the husband to approach the Supreme Court, along with a request for the Court to directly grant the divorce under its special constitutional powers.
The Supreme Court found the wife's fresh Domestic Violence Act complaint to be a clear breach of the settlement's "bar on future litigation" clause and quashed those proceedings, setting aside the Delhi High Court's impugned interim order. Exercising its power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution, the Court also directly dissolved the marriage, subject to the husband paying the balance settlement amount and handing over the PPF passbook within two weeks (failing which the divorce would not take effect), the parties executing mutual relinquishment deeds, and the ₹89 lakh deposited by the wife being refunded to her with interest. All other pending proceedings between the parties or their families arising from the marriage were closed, with a complete bar on any future litigation on the subject.
A comprehensive, court-recorded mediated settlement in a matrimonial dispute, especially one with a mutual "no future litigation" clause, is meant to be final; breaching it by filing fresh proceedings like a Domestic Violence Act complaint can be quashed by the Supreme Court, which also has the power under Article 142 to grant a clean divorce directly to bring closure once such a settlement is substantially honoured.
