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, a former Minister in the Gujarat government, was accused (as Accused No. 2) under the Prevention of Corruption Act along with several others of allocating fishing contracts in state reservoirs without following the required tender process, allegedly to obtain illegal gratification. A fish trader who wanted to bid through the proper tender process had complained, leading the High Court to earlier cancel the illegal allotments and direct a proper tender process; a corruption case then followed, and the appellant's application to be discharged from the case was rejected by the trial court and by the Gujarat High Court.
The Supreme Court reviewed the investigation report, the pre-charge statements of the complainant and police officers, and all other material on record, and found that while there were allegations of a demand for bribes against the first accused (a different Minister), there was not even a single allegation, let alone evidence, of any demand or acceptance of illegal gratification specifically by the appellant. Since a demand and acceptance of bribe is an essential ingredient for an offence under the Act, and the presumption of corruption cannot arise from mere administrative decision-making without proof of that demand, the Court held the discharge application should have been allowed as against the appellant. It clarified that its observations were confined to the appellant and would not affect the ongoing case against the first accused.
Being part of a government decision that is later found improper or even benefits others financially does not, by itself, establish a corruption offence. The prosecution must show concrete evidence of a demand for and acceptance of a bribe by that specific individual, and courts can quash proceedings at the discharge stage when that basic ingredient is entirely missing from the record.
