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 moreKanwaljit Singh had taken individual Mediclaim policies for his family since 2007-08 and switched to a "Parivar - Family Mediclaim Policy" with a Rs. 5,00,000 sum insured for 2014-15. During that policy year, his son Master Jasnoor Singh required hospitalization twice at PGI Chandigarh, running up medical bills of about Rs. 8.55 lakh. National Insurance Company first repudiated the claim and then paid only Rs. 27,550, citing a supposedly pre-existing disease and basing payment on an old, much smaller individual policy sum. Consumer fora gave inconsistent relief, the District Forum awarded a small top-up, the State Commission awarded the full Rs. 5,00,000, and the National Commission restored the District Forum's low figure, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that since no pre-existing disease existed when the original policy was first taken in 2007-08 and it had been continuously renewed since, the insurer could not invoke a pre-existing-disease exclusion. Interpreting the Family Mediclaim Policy's own clause, the Court found the payout for any one family member's illness is capped at 50% of the family's total sum insured (i.e., 50% of Rs. 5,00,000 = Rs. 2,50,000), not the full sum insured and not the lower amount the insurer had calculated from an old individual policy. It therefore allowed the appeal in part, directing the insurer to pay Rs. 2,50,000 (minus amounts already paid), plus Rs. 50,000 for mental agony/harassment, Rs. 30,000 in costs, and 7.5% interest from the date of the original complaint.
Under a family floater/Mediclaim policy, an insurer cannot deny a claim on a "pre-existing disease" ground if no such condition existed when the policy was first taken and it has been continuously renewed since; and the per-illness payout cap under such policies must be read strictly from the policy's own wording (commonly 50% of the family's total sum insured), not arbitrarily scaled down by the insurer.
