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 moreA litigant had filed a Transfer Petition seeking to move his criminal case from the Telangana High Court to the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), alleging that the hearing judge was biased and had curtailed his counsel's arguments to just five minutes, and separately making scandalous remarks suggesting the judge would favour a politically influential opposing party. The Supreme Court dismissed the transfer petition but, troubled by the scandalous language used against the High Court judge, issued show-cause notices for contempt to the litigant (N. Peddi Raju), the Advocate-on-Record who filed the petition, and the counsel who drafted it. All three tendered affidavits of apology.
The Court reaffirmed longstanding precedent (M.Y. Shareef v. Judges of Nagpur High Court) that lawyers who sign pleadings scandalising a court without reasonably verifying the allegations are themselves guilty of contempt, since a lawyer's duty to the court overrides duty to the client. It firmly rejected the idea that a case involving a political figure justifies assuming a High Court judge cannot act impartially, calling this itself an attack on the institution of justice. Noting the apology was tendered only to the Supreme Court and not to the High Court judge who was actually maligned, the Court permitted the contemnors to tender an unconditional apology directly before that judge, directed the underlying (already-disposed) criminal case be reopened solely for that purpose, and deferred its final view on accepting the apology until after the High Court judge rules on it.
Lawyers bear personal responsibility for scandalous allegations they put into court pleadings on a client's instructions, merely following a client's wishes is no defence, and an apology for maligning a judge is most meaningful when offered to that judge directly, not just to a higher court.
