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 supplied goods and, in part discharge of the buyer's liability, received two cheques of Rs. 5 lakh each drawn on an account of "M/s. Shah Enterprises," signed by the second respondent as power-of-attorney holder of the first respondent. Both cheques bounced for insufficient funds. A complaint was filed, but the trial court acquitted the respondents because the complaint and demand notice were framed against M/s. Shah Enterprises, while the appellant's own evidence showed the actual liability (for goods sold) was that of a different, related entity, "M/s. Shah Agencies." The Bombay High Court refused the appellant leave to appeal against that acquittal, prompting this further appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that Section 138 liability attaches only to the actual drawer of the dishonoured cheque, and the notice of demand must be addressed to that drawer. Here, the cheques were drawn on M/s. Shah Enterprises' account, but the appellant's own notice and complaint acknowledged that the underlying goods and liability belonged to M/s. Shah Agencies: a separate entity that was never actually impleaded or served notice. There was no evidence that Shah Enterprises had taken over Shah Agencies' liability. Relying on precedent (including Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels) on the need to properly implead the liable entity under Section 141, the Court found the High Court's reasoning "absolutely flawless" and upheld the concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court. The appeal was dismissed.
When filing a cheque-bounce complaint, the complainant must correctly identify and implead the entity that actually owes the underlying debt and whose account the cheque is drawn on, conflating two separate businesses (even if run by the same family) can be fatal to the prosecution, however genuine the underlying dispute.
