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 moreM/s Shree Niwas Ramgopal was a kerosene dealership firm for Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), run as a partnership. When the majority partner (holding 55% share) died in 2009 leaving numerous heirs, the surviving partners reconstituted the firm with one of the deceased's heirs joining as a new partner. IOCL refused to recognise the reconstituted firm and halted kerosene supply, insisting all legal heirs of the deceased partner either join the firm or give a no-objection certificate, even though none of the heirs themselves objected to the arrangement. The Calcutta High Court's Single Judge and Division Bench both ruled against IOCL and directed it to continue supply, prompting IOCL's appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court found that IOCL had acted arbitrarily and in a "high-handed manner," misreading its own dealership guidelines. It held that surviving partners are not obliged to induct every heir of a deceased partner into a reconstituted firm: that choice lies within the wisdom of the existing partners, not IOCL, and demanding a no-objection from every heir went beyond IOCL's contractual role. Since none of the deceased partner's own heirs had objected to the reconstitution, the Court held IOCL's technical, obstructive stance served no legitimate purpose and unjustifiably threatened a long-running business. It dismissed the Special Leave Petition as devoid of merit, upholding the High Court's mandamus, and pointedly told IOCL to avoid such litigation against ongoing businesses in future.
A public sector corporation exercising contractual discretion (such as approving a dealership or partnership reconstitution) must act fairly and reasonably, not adopt an overly technical or obstructive reading of its own rules, especially when the very people it claims to be protecting (the heirs) have raised no objection themselves.
