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-husband and respondent-wife, both government school teachers in Punjab, married in 2003 with no children. The husband alleged the marriage was strained and later filed for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The Trial Court dismissed his petition for failing to prove the allegations, and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld that dismissal. The husband then appealed to the Supreme Court, and the parties, who had been living separately for nearly two decades, appeared in person before the Court.
The Supreme Court found that although the husband had failed to prove cruelty or desertion in the ordinary legal sense, the marriage had indisputably and irretrievably broken down: the couple had lived apart for about twenty years, mediation had failed, and there was no realistic possibility of reconciliation. The Court held that keeping such a dead marriage alive would only prolong both parties' suffering and serve no purpose. Exercising its special power under Article 142 of the Constitution (available only to the Supreme Court, to do complete justice), it granted a decree of divorce, setting aside the High Court and Trial Court orders. The husband agreed to pay ₹15,00,000 as full and final permanent alimony, to be paid within two months, after which the divorce decree would be drawn up, and any pending civil or criminal proceedings between the parties were closed.
Even where a spouse cannot strictly prove cruelty or desertion, the Supreme Court can grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage using its special Article 142 powers, a remedy not available in ordinary trial or High Courts, typically coupled with a fair one-time alimony settlement.
