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 moreJay Kishan and two relatives were booked under the U.P. Gangsters Act after police accused their family "gang" of being behind three separate criminal cases, which in turn arose from property and money disputes with a neighbouring family - a disputed land sale where an advance payment was made but the sale deed was never executed, a disputed property exchange, and an old tenancy/land-ownership dispute. The Allahabad High Court had refused to quash the FIR, leaving the appellants free only to seek bail. The appellants argued the underlying disputes were purely civil in nature, wrongly dressed up as gang criminality to pressure them.
The Supreme Court held that invoking a stringent, liberty-restricting law like the Gangsters Act requires the underlying cases to genuinely disclose "anti-social activity" as defined in the Act - vague, formulaic allegations copied into an FIR are not enough, and courts must look beneath the surface of the FIR rather than accepting it at face value. Examining the three predicate cases, the Court found they substantially arose from property and monetary transactions that were civil in character, none of the allegations had been proven at trial, and there was no instance shown of the appellants acting on any of the alleged threats after the cases were registered. Since a penal statute of this kind must be construed strictly and cannot be used merely because IPC sections happen to be mentioned in a complaint, the Court quashed the FIR and set aside the High Court's judgment, while clarifying it expressed no view on the underlying civil disputes or on the separate pending criminal cases themselves.
Ordinary property or money disputes between families cannot automatically be escalated into "organised gang" criminal charges under special preventive laws just by adding IPC sections to a complaint - courts are required to examine the real substance behind such FIRs, especially when a person's liberty is at stake.
