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 moreIn 2003, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence officers seized over 40,000 unlabelled ampoules of Buprenorphine Hydrochloride (an injectable psychotropic substance capable of being abused as a narcotic) from business premises in Delhi and a manufacturing unit in Haryana, without any valid licence, and arrested the respondents including Raj Kumar Arora. The Trial Court and Delhi High Court had held that no offence was made out under the NDPS Act because Buprenorphine, while listed in the Schedule to the NDPS Act itself, was not separately listed in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules, and on that basis transferred the case to be dealt with only under the milder Drugs and Cosmetics Act, effectively deleting the NDPS charges before trial.
In a lengthy judgment spanning nearly 190 pages, the Supreme Court held that a substance's mere absence from Schedule I of the NDPS Rules does not take it outside the NDPS Act if it is already listed in the Schedule to the Act itself: the NDPS Rules operate "in addition to," not as a replacement for, the substantive coverage of the Act. The Court held that its earlier ruling in Sanjeev V. Deshpande clarifying this point applies retrospectively (not just to future cases), since it merely clarified existing law rather than creating a new offence, so no constitutional bar under Article 20(1) against retrospective criminal liability was triggered. It further held that Trial Courts have no power under Section 216 CrPC to delete or discharge an already-framed charge, that provision only permits altering or adding to a charge, so both trial courts had acted illegally in transferring the cases away from NDPS jurisdiction. The Court restored the NDPS charges and directed that the accused be tried by the Special NDPS Judge.
Once a criminal charge has been properly framed against an accused, it must be resolved by conviction or acquittal at trial: procedural provisions like Section 216 CrPC cannot be misused as a backdoor route to discharge a case mid-trial; and a Supreme Court ruling that merely clarifies the correct reading of an existing law will normally apply to past conduct as well as future cases.
