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 respondent, a model, visited the beauty salon at ITC's Maurya Hotel in New Delhi for a haircut in 2018 and was dissatisfied with the service, alleging it damaged her career. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission first awarded her Rs. 2 crore in compensation for deficiency in service; the Supreme Court earlier set aside that quantum and remitted the case back for fresh determination of damages, since she had not produced adequate proof of her claimed professional losses. On remand, despite raising her claim to Rs. 5.2 crore and submitting further documents (many of them photocopies), the Commission again awarded Rs. 2 crore, prompting ITC's fresh appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Court held that awarding damages running into crores of rupees requires trustworthy, reliable evidence and cannot rest on presumption or on mere photocopies of documents whose authenticity and content were disputed, especially when discrepancies in those photocopies had been pointed out. It found the Commission had not properly assessed how the respondent actually suffered a loss of Rs. 2 crore and had improperly excused the lack of originals on grounds of the complainant's alleged trauma. The Court therefore held that the compensation award could not be justified on the evidence produced, and modified the order to restrict the respondent's entitlement to the Rs. 25 lakh already deposited by ITC and released to her, rather than the larger sum awarded by the Commission.
In consumer disputes claiming large monetary damages, the burden is on the complainant to produce credible, verifiable evidence of the actual loss suffered: vague assertions or disputed photocopies are not enough to sustain a multi-crore compensation award.
