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 appellants' 20-year-old daughter, an air-hostess trainee, was killed when the car she was travelling in was hit by a rashly driven vehicle insured with the respondent company. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded her parents Rs. 10,40,000 in compensation, applying a multiplier of 11 based on the age of the deceased's mother rather than the deceased herself, and without granting amounts for future prospects, loss of estate, or adequate loss of consortium. The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld this award, so the parents appealed to the Supreme Court seeking enhancement.
The Supreme Court held that settled law (including a three-judge bench ruling and the Constitution Bench decision in Pranay Sethi) required the compensation multiplier to be based on the age of the deceased, not the parents, so for a 20-year-old, the correct multiplier was 18, not 11. The Court also held the lower courts erred in not awarding 40% of income towards "future prospects" (as mandated for a young unmarried person under Pranay Sethi), not awarding Rs. 15,000 for loss of estate, and under-awarding loss of consortium (which should be Rs. 40,000 to each parent per the Nanu Ram precedent, rather than the lower Rs. 25,000 given). Recalculating with these corrections, the Court enhanced the total compensation by Rs. 13,48,000, to be paid within one month with 7.5% interest from the date of filing the claim.
In motor accident death claims, the compensation multiplier is tied to the age of the deceased (not surviving dependents), and courts must also factor in future income prospects, loss of estate, and proper consortium amounts for parents: claimants should check an award against these settled Supreme Court formulas before accepting it as final.
