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 husband and wife, both naturalized US citizens of Indian origin, became embroiled in parallel divorce proceedings: he filed for divorce in the Family Court at Gurgaon, while she filed for divorce (and other reliefs like property division and alimony) in a Florida court on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, a ground not available under Indian law. The husband sought and initially obtained an ex-parte injunction from the Gurgaon Family Court restraining the wife from pursuing the Florida case, but this was later vacated, and both the District Judge and the Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the vacation.
The Supreme Court examined the law on anti-suit injunctions, which allow a court to restrain a party from pursuing litigation in another court (including a foreign one) over whom it has personal jurisdiction, but held such injunctions must be granted sparingly and cautiously since they intrude on another court's jurisdiction. Applying established principles from Modi Entertainment Network and related precedents, the Court found that the wife was genuinely residing in India (evidenced by her PAN card, Aadhaar, and a lease deed) and was amenable to the Gurgaon court's jurisdiction, but that the husband failed to show he would suffer grave or irreparable injustice if the Florida proceedings continued, especially since both spouses held US citizenship and the Florida court had concurrent jurisdiction. The Court held the Florida proceedings were not oppressive or vexatious and dismissed the husband's appeal, affirming the High Court's decision not to restrain the wife's foreign divorce case.
Indian courts can restrain a spouse from pursuing a competing divorce case abroad, but only sparingly: such an anti-suit injunction will not be granted just because the foreign proceeding relies on grounds unavailable under Indian law; the party seeking the injunction must show real, irreparable injustice would otherwise result.
