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 moreAn informant alleged that in 2015-16 she paid large sums of money for a plot of land under an unregistered sale agreement with one accused, who never completed the sale. Years later, in 2022, the appellant (accused no. 2) allegedly purchased the very same plot from the original accused, and was consequently also chargesheeted for cheating and related offences under the Indian Penal Code. The appellant sought discharge from the trial court and, having failed there and in a criminal revision before the Madras High Court, appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined the actual sequence of events and found that the disputed money transaction between the informant and the original accused took place entirely in 2015-2016, while the appellant only entered the picture in 2022 when he separately bought the plot from the original accused. There was no material showing the appellant made any representation, received any payment, or gave any threat to the informant. Since the ingredients of cheating and criminal breach of trust require the accused's own dishonest conduct at the relevant time, and none was shown against the appellant, the Court held that continuing the prosecution against him was unjustified. It quashed the trial court's and High Court's orders refusing discharge and quashed the chargesheet and proceedings as against the appellant alone.
A person cannot be prosecuted for cheating merely because he later dealt with property connected to an earlier fraud: criminal liability requires proof of that specific person's own dishonest act or representation at the relevant time.
