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 moreDr. Amit Kumar and Dr. Sonila, both CRPF doctors, divorced by mutual consent in 2016, agreeing that their son and daughter would live with the father, who would also bear major expenses, while the mother would contribute to the daughter's education costs. A dispute arose when the father asked the mother to pay her agreed share and she instead sought custody of the children, later even filing a civil suit to have the divorce declared void on grounds of coercion. The Bombay High Court, after interviewing the children, awarded custody to the mother.
The Supreme Court found that the original custody arrangement was a conscious decision both well-educated parties freely made after the mandatory six-month "cooling-off" period for mutual divorce, and could not be lightly dismissed as coerced years later. It noted the mother had not contributed her agreed share for the daughter while sending money to a male colleague, and concluded her custody claim was really a reaction to being asked to pay up, not a genuine welfare concern. The Court held the High Court gave undue weight to the children's preference expressed in an informal interview, over-looking that children would naturally prefer a parent to a boarding school at that moment. It restored custody to the father as per the original consent decree, directing the mother to return the children within 30 days, while allowing continuity in their current school until the end of the academic session.
Terms freely and knowingly agreed in a mutual-consent divorce decree, especially after the mandatory reflection period, carry real legal weight and will not be easily reopened simply because one party has a change of heart; courts look past surface impressions to the genuine, long-term welfare of the children involved.
