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 complainant (respondent No.1) were partners in a firm formed in 1976, to which the appellant had contributed land on which two godowns were built and leased to the Food Corporation of India. A 1981 supplementary agreement, made with the consent of all partners, provided that once the godowns fell vacant the land would revert to the appellant's individual ownership, and a 1997 dissolution deed transferred the firm's assets and liabilities to the appellant as his sole proprietary concern. Years later, after a civil court had already declared the firm dissolved and the appellant had sold the property to his nephew, the complainant filed both a civil suit challenging the sale and a criminal complaint alleging criminal breach of trust and cheating against the appellant. The Gauhati High Court declined to quash the criminal complaint, prompting this appeal.
The Supreme Court held that the dispute was fundamentally civil in nature, arising from the interpretation of the partnership deed, the supplementary agreement, and the dissolution deed, all of which supported the appellant's ownership claim, and that no criminal offence of breach of trust or cheating was made out on the allegations. Applying the well-established guidelines from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal for when criminal proceedings should be quashed, the Court found the complaint was filed with mala fide intent, essentially to pressure the appellant in what was really a property/civil dispute already being litigated in civil courts. It cautioned against the growing misuse of criminal process to settle civil scores, quashed the complaint case and all consequent proceedings, and allowed the appeal.
Criminal law cannot be used as a shortcut or pressure tactic to resolve what is genuinely a civil dispute over property or partnership rights. Courts will step in to quash such complaints when the underlying facts show no criminal offence and reveal an ulterior, mala fide motive.
