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 was facing a Sessions trial for serious offences including murder (Sections 302, 325, 326, 331, 352 read with 34 IPC) following a Chief Judicial Magistrate's order summoning him. He filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Patna High Court seeking to quash the proceedings against him, but the High Court dismissed his petition in a short, 13-paragraph order that recorded the facts and the parties' arguments but gave no reasons for rejecting his case. The appellant challenged this non-speaking dismissal before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that a court cannot simply record its conclusion ("the petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed") without explaining why, giving reasons is essential because it shows that the court actually applied its mind to the arguments raised. Since the High Court's order contained no discussion of the merits or the parties' submissions, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and sent the Section 482 petition back for a fresh decision on merits, while being careful to state it was expressing no opinion of its own on whether the quashing petition should succeed or fail.
Any judicial or quasi-judicial order that affects a person's rights must explain its reasoning: an unreasoned order, even if the final conclusion might otherwise be correct, can be struck down and sent back simply for failing to show how the decision was reached.
