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 moreG. Mohandas, a building owner in Thiruvananthapuram, was accused of conspiring with municipal corporation officials to obtain a permit meant only for "renovation" of an existing building (a permit that, under the applicable rules, was not even legally required for internal alterations) and then using that permit as cover to demolish the old building and construct an unauthorised four-storeyed commercial building in a zone where commercial construction was prohibited. A vigilance enquiry and FIR followed under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC conspiracy provisions. Mohandas sought to have the FIR and chargesheet quashed by the Kerala High Court, arguing the building had actually collapsed in heavy rain forcing reconstruction, and that regularisation of the construction (on payment of compounding charges) had erased any criminality; the High Court refused.
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that quashing was not warranted. It found the prosecution's version (that Mohandas continued construction in defiance of an official stop-memo, and later tried to get the illegal structure regularised as a cover) was well supported by the record, establishing the ingredients of criminal conspiracy and corruption offences at the prima facie stage. The Court rejected the argument that seeking regularisation erased criminality, noting the regularisation itself never actually went through once the vigilance enquiry exposed the scheme. It also rejected a parity argument based on the architect's case being quashed, since the architect had no proven role in the conspiracy while Mohandas did. The appeal was dismissed.
Courts will not quash a criminal case at the threshold merely because the accused later applies to "regularise" an illegal construction: regularisation does not retroactively erase criminal conspiracy or corruption where the underlying scheme is otherwise established by the material on record.
