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 petitioner had filed contempt proceedings alleging that Chhattisgarh government officials failed to comply with a Supreme Court order dated 20.05.2025 (passed in related civil appeals) within the three-month deadline set by the Court. The named respondents (originally Mr. Amarnath Prasad and Mr. V. Sreenivasa Rao) were substituted during the hearing with the officers actually holding the relevant posts: Ms. Richa Sharma, Additional Chief Secretary, Forest and Climate Change, and Mr. Anil Kumar Sahu, since the final compliance decision rested with them. The alleged contemnors admitted in their affidavit that compliance had not happened, citing "administrative hurdles," and had instead filed a defective, delayed Review Petition against the original order rather than complying with it.
The Supreme Court held that a clear, prima facie case of contempt was made out, since the officers had effectively admitted non-compliance while offering what the Court called "inexcusable justifications." It held that filing a Review Petition does not excuse non-compliance with a Court order: the order must be obeyed first, and any relief sought through review or otherwise cannot be made a precondition for compliance. The Court reaffirmed (citing Sita Ram v. Balbir and other precedents) that even persons not originally party to an order can be held liable for contempt if they knowingly assist in its breach, and that a contempt court only examines whether an order was complied with, not whether it was correct. Rather than immediately framing charges, the Court granted the officers one final 15-day-extended opportunity (adjourning to 24.03.2026) to fully comply, on their personal undertaking, failing which charges would be framed and they would have to appear in person.
A Supreme Court order must be complied with even while a review petition against it is pending: merely filing a review, especially a defective or delayed one, is not a valid excuse for non-compliance, and government officers (including those who take over a post later) remain personally accountable for enforcing court orders.
