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 complainant, G Ramesh, had done data-entry sub-contract work for a partnership firm. Several cheques issued to him by the firm towards payment were dishonoured for insufficient funds, and he filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the firm and its partners. One partner (the first respondent) approached the Chhattisgarh High Court (at Hyderabad) under Section 482 CrPC, which quashed the proceedings against him, holding the complaint's averments insufficient to fix him with liability under Section 141 (the provision that extends liability to persons in charge of a firm's business). The complainant appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the complaint did contain sufficient averments describing the nature of the partnership, the business being carried on, and the specific role of each accused, including the first respondent, in the transactions that led to the dishonoured cheques, satisfying the requirements of Section 141(1). The Court found the High Court had erred by treating the firm as a "company" with "directors" and overlooking that Section 141's definition of "company" already extends to a partnership firm, with partners standing in the place of directors. Relying on its earlier ruling in Gunmala Sales (2015), the Court held that quashing a complaint at the threshold is appropriate only where no offence is made out at all, not merely because detailed particulars of a partner's role are absent: such matters can be tested at trial. The appeal was allowed and the High Court's quashing order was set aside, restoring the criminal complaint for trial, while leaving the respondent free to seek a personal-appearance exemption from the trial court.
Partners of a firm can be made criminally liable for a dishonoured business cheque if a complaint describes the firm's business and each partner's role in the relevant transactions: courts should be slow to quash such a complaint at the outset on technical labelling grounds ("company" vs. "firm"), since the adequacy of a person's individual involvement is ordinarily a matter for trial, not for a pre-trial quashing petition.
