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 National Green Tribunal had ordered the Bareilly Municipal Corporation to stop dumping municipal solid waste at a site found to be causing environmental degradation and injury to public health, and to remove waste already dumped there. When dumping continued and the waste was not fully removed, the NGT punished Dr. I.S. Tomar, then Mayor of Bareilly, and the Municipal Commissioner with civil imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 5 lakh each, besides fining the Corporation Rs. 1 lakh per day for the period of the violation. The NGT was also displeased by press remarks the Mayor had made questioning its impartiality, though it accepted his unconditional apology for those remarks. Both officials appealed to the Supreme Court against their personal punishment.
The Supreme Court held that Section 26 of the NGT Act is a penal provision that must be strictly construed, and that punishing a person for non-compliance requires proof that the individual actually had the power to prevent the prohibited act. The Mayor was never even a party to the applications in which the dumping-ban orders were passed, was never served notice of them, and had no executive authority over the Municipal Corporation's waste operations, that power lay with the Commissioner, so there was no basis to find he had personally violated the orders; his punishment was set aside. Likewise, no finding of wilful default had been recorded against the Commissioner, so his imprisonment and fine were also set aside. However, the Rs. 1 lakh per day fine imposed on the Municipal Corporation itself was upheld, since the Corporation had admittedly failed to remove all the dumped waste as directed.
Personal penalties, including imprisonment, for an institution's failure to comply with a tribunal or court order cannot be imposed on an office-holder, such as a Mayor, unless it is shown that person actually had the power and responsibility to ensure compliance; holding a titular or ceremonial post is not enough.
