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 physically disabled dealer ran a petrol pump under a dealership agreement with Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) in Assam. During an inspection, IOC found an impermissible stock variation in diesel and sent samples for testing; the samples (including a retest) repeatedly failed quality specifications. IOC terminated the dealership for violating its Marketing Discipline Guidelines. The dealer challenged the termination, and both the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court ruled in his favour, holding that IOC had breached the Guidelines' time limit for sending samples to the laboratory for testing. IOC appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the Guidelines used the word "preferably" for the sample-testing timeline, which was expressly meant only to "streamline" internal procedure and was "in no way related to quality/result of the product", so it could not be read as a mandatory, strict requirement whose breach would invalidate an otherwise valid test result. The Court also rejected the dealer's argument that the sampling needed to follow search-and-seizure procedures under the Essential Commodities Act, since that only applies when someone is being criminally prosecuted, not in a purely contractual/administrative dealership action. Finding that the samples had genuinely failed quality tests on two separate occasions and that stock variation beyond permissible limits combined with a failed sample was correctly treated as a serious ("critical") violation warranting termination, the Court set aside the High Court's judgments and upheld the termination.
In contracts and regulatory guidelines, the specific wording matters: a timeline described as "preferable" is generally directory guidance, not a strict, mandatory deadline whose breach alone can invalidate an otherwise sound and procedurally fair decision.
