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. M. Dakshayani, a government Assistant Surgeon, challenged the promotion of a colleague (Respondent No.2) to Assistant Professor and then Professor of Ophthalmology, arguing he lacked the required qualifications when first moved into teaching duties. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal initially set aside the colleague's promotions, but the Karnataka High Court reversed the Tribunal and upheld them, leading to this appeal. A connected contempt petition alleged that the respondent's temporary appointment as Head of Department violated earlier Supreme Court status-quo orders.
The Supreme Court held that the respondent's initial posting as a Lecturer on deputation, and his later absorption after acquiring a postgraduate qualification, was valid since a Graduation degree alone was sufficient for direct-recruitment Lecturer posts, and the deputation arose from a genuine administrative need created by vacancies. The Court found no merit in the appellant's claim that the respondent was unqualified, and accordingly dismissed the civil appeal. On the contempt petition, the Court held that the respondent's placement as Officiating Head of Department was an express temporary, in-charge arrangement pending the final outcome of the appeal and did not violate the earlier status-quo orders (which were restricted to the post of Professor and above), so the contempt petition was also dismissed.
A temporary or in-charge administrative posting made pending a Court's final decision, and clearly limited in scope by the Court's own clarifying orders, does not amount to contempt merely because the underlying promotion dispute is still being litigated.
