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 Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association (HPCA) had been allotted government and Gram Panchayat land near Dharamshala over several years (starting 2001) to build an international cricket stadium and, later, additional land for a club house, after the International Cricket Council flagged inadequate accommodation facilities. Two FIRs were registered against HPCA office-bearers and others in 2013 alleging cheating, criminal breach of trust, corruption, and unauthorised use of public property in connection with these land allotments and the club house construction. The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed HPCA's petitions to quash both FIRs, and after chargesheets were subsequently filed, HPCA also filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the resulting order of cognizance; both matters were heard together.
The Supreme Court found that the land allotments and the club house construction had followed proper official procedure at each stage, required approvals, no-objection certificates, and completion certificates had all been obtained from the competent authorities, and that government officials who had taken the relevant decisions had themselves been cleared of wrongdoing. It held that the High Court had examined the matter only shallowly and failed to appreciate that these facts showed no criminal offence was made out, meaning continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of the court's process. Applying settled principles on inherent power to quash proceedings (including the Bhajan Lal guidelines), the Court allowed the criminal appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, quashed both FIRs, and consequently held that the connected order of cognizance was also vitiated, disposing of the writ petition in the same terms with no order as to costs.
Courts can quash a criminal case before trial, under their inherent power, when the record itself shows that no offence is actually made out, particularly where the underlying official decisions were taken with proper approvals and the officials involved were already cleared, so continuing the prosecution would only harass the accused rather than serve justice.
