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. Saminathan and his wife owned vacant land in Chennai and, in 2012, entered into an unregistered Joint Development Agreement with a construction company, executing a Power of Attorney in the company's favour and receiving a Rs. 3 crore refundable security deposit. The project stalled in 2013 when planning permission was refused because the land was part of an unapproved layout. In 2018, the owners cancelled the Power of Attorney and sold the property to a third party without refunding the deposit, prompting a criminal complaint for cheating and criminal breach of trust; the Madras High Court declined to quash the case.
The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, chargesheet, and case entirely. It held that merely retaining a refundable deposit does not amount to criminal "entrustment," since it was consideration for the Power of Attorney, not property held in trust. On the cheating charge, the Court held that dishonest intent must exist at the very start of a transaction, not be inferred from how things fell apart later: here, the project's failure stemmed from a planning-approval risk the agreement itself allocated to the buyer's due diligence, not fraud. The Court also noted that cheating and criminal breach of trust are legally mutually exclusive and cannot both be alleged on identical facts, and, applying the Bhajan Lal guidelines, found this was fundamentally a civil dispute (already under arbitration) being pursued through criminal process as leverage.
A failed business or property deal (a withheld refundable deposit, a stalled project, a later sale to someone else) is not automatically a crime. Cheating and criminal breach of trust require proof of dishonest intent from the very beginning of the deal, and courts will step in to quash criminal cases that are really an attempt to pressure the other side in what is fundamentally a civil dispute.
