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 appellant and the first respondent married each other in April 2010 without their parents' consent and sought police protection from the High Court, which was initially granted. Later, acting on an application by the wife's father, the High Court recalled its own protection order and directed registration of an FIR against the husband under Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, on the ground that he was actually a minor (17 years old) at the time of marriage, contrary to what he had earlier stated. The husband appealed to the Supreme Court, which had stayed the High Court's order back in 2010.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had no power under Section 482 CrPC to recall or review its own earlier order in a criminal matter. On merits, the Court further held that Section 9 of the 2006 Act, which punishes a "male adult" for marrying a child, could not apply to the husband in any event, because he was himself a minor (below 18) at the time of marriage, and even assuming he was between 18-21, the provision is meant to punish adult men who marry child brides, not to criminalise child grooms who marry adult women. The Court traced the legislative history of the Act to show its protective purpose was aimed at safeguarding minor girls, not penalising young husbands. Since the couple were living together happily with no threat from family, continued police protection was unnecessary, and the FIR direction was quashed; the appeal was allowed.
A court's inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to recall or review its own prior criminal orders, and a criminal provision aimed at protecting minors cannot be turned around to punish the very class of young persons it was designed to protect.
