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 moreEssar Teleholdings Ltd. and two co-petitioners were named as accused in a second supplementary chargesheet filed by the CBI in the 2G spectrum scam case, under the Indian Penal Code rather than the Prevention of Corruption Act. After the Supreme Court had earlier (1 July 2013) dismissed their writ petitions challenging the special judge's jurisdiction, Essar applied to the Special Judge for a joint trial with the main 2G Scam case, arguing the Supreme Court's earlier judgment implied one. The Special Judge refused, citing the advanced stage of the main trial (146 and 71 witnesses already examined in the two cases respectively) and the risk of wasted effort and miscarriage of justice. Essar and the other two petitioners appealed/petitioned against that refusal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that its earlier 2013 judgment had only given the Special Judge discretion to order a joint trial, not a mandatory direction to do so, and that the petitioners were effectively re-arguing points already rejected. Under Sections 220 and 223 CrPC, joinder of trials is discretionary, and the Court found the Special Judge had given cogent, fact-specific reasons (advanced stage of evidence, no commonality of facts/accused/purpose) for declining a joint trial. The Court also held that once the administrative order setting up the Special Judge for all 2G Scam-related offences was valid, the Special Judge had jurisdiction over Penal Code offences connected to the scam even independent of Section 4(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Finding no infirmity in the Special Judge's order, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and both writ petitions, granting leave in the underlying SLP first.
Courts have wide discretion whether to combine related criminal cases into one trial, and that discretion will usually be upheld on appeal where combining cases late in the process would waste already-completed trial work or confuse the proceedings; a party cannot convert a court's permissive observation ("may" order a joint trial) into a mandatory entitlement.
