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 moreIn the 2014 Coal Block Allocation cases, the Supreme Court had set up a dedicated Special Judge to exclusively try all coal-block-allocation criminal cases and had directed that any request to stay or impede the investigation/trial could be made only to the Supreme Court itself, not to any other court. The appellant, Girish Kumar Suneja, was chargesheeted and had charges framed against him by the Special Judge in a case linked to Jindal Steel and Power Ltd.; when he tried to challenge that order before the Delhi High Court, the High Court held the petition was not maintainable because of the Supreme Court's 2014 direction. He and several other similarly-placed accused persons (14 connected appeals in total) appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that this restriction unconstitutionally stripped them of their rights to seek revision (Section 397 CrPC), approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, or invoke writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court held that its 2014 order was validly passed under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice and prevent the coal-scam trials, already plagued by delay, from being further hampered by parties running to multiple forums. It reasoned that allowing accused persons to approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC or Articles 226/227, or to file revisions, while the Special Judge's order for day-to-day trial was in force, would defeat the very purpose of the Supreme Court's own constitutional directions, since no lower court could in any event monitor or stay proceedings the Supreme Court itself was supervising. Noting that this very issue had already been raised and rejected in earlier related cases, the Court declined to revisit or modify its 2014 order, thereby affirming that any request to stay or interfere with the coal-block trials must come only to the Supreme Court.
When the Supreme Court exercises its special constitutional powers (Articles 136 and 142) to set up and closely supervise a sensitive, time-bound criminal trial, it can validly restrict accused persons from approaching other courts to challenge interlocutory trial orders, ensuring high-profile or complex prosecutions are not stalled by parallel litigation in multiple forums.
