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's son was arrested by the CID, Andhra Pradesh, in a cheating/criminal breach of trust case and was produced before the Special Judge, Vijayawada, within 24 hours, where police remand was granted. The appellant filed a habeas corpus petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, arguing that the grounds of arrest served on his son were vague, an "eyewash," and lacked material particulars, making the detention illegal and violative of Article 21 and Article 22 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the notice under Section 47 BNSS, the grounds of arrest, and the remand report (signed by the detenue) together showed sufficient compliance. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined the grounds of arrest and the remand report in detail against the standard laid down in its earlier decision in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, which requires that an arrested person be informed of precise, meaningful grounds, not just a formal recital of the offence. The Court found that, unlike in Vihaan Kumar (where nothing was served on the detenue or his family), here the remand report and grounds of arrest were in fact served on the detenue, who acknowledged this by signature, and that the material supplied was adequate to satisfy the constitutional requirement. Concluding there was no constitutional infirmity in the arrest or remand, the Court dismissed the appeal, while clarifying that the detenue remained free to apply for regular bail before the appropriate court, and directed that any pending bail application be decided expeditiously on settled principles. A connected special leave petition was disposed of as academic, with the underlying legal question kept open.
An arrest is not automatically rendered illegal merely because the arrestee's family finds the stated grounds inadequate. Courts will examine whether meaningful grounds were actually communicated and acknowledged (e.g., through a signed remand report), and if so, a habeas corpus challenge to the arrest itself will fail, though the person remains free to separately seek regular bail.
