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 moreIn 2011, the appellant, then a 21-year-old arts student, was travelling as a passenger in an omni bus from Coimbatore to Chennai when the bus, driven rashly, crashed into a tree, leaving him with 100% permanent disability. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded him about Rs. 67.8 lakh in compensation. On cross-appeals by both the claimant (seeking more) and the insurance company (seeking less), the Madras High Court cut the award by about Rs. 19 lakh, reducing amounts for future medical expenses, attendant charges, permanent disability, and family pain and suffering, in some cases without giving reasons.
The Supreme Court restored and enhanced the compensation, holding the High Court's reductions were largely unjustified and, in several instances, unexplained. It increased future medical expenses from Rs. 2 lakh (as reduced by the High Court) to Rs. 15 lakh, reasoning that capping such expenses at 25 years was unrealistic for a 21-year-old with a lifelong disability; restored the Rs. 3 lakh for loss of enjoyment of life and amenities and the Rs. 3 lakh for family pain and suffering, both of which the High Court had scrapped without explanation; raised attendant charges from Rs. 3 lakh to a lump sum of Rs. 10 lakh; and restored Rs. 5 lakh for permanent disability, clarifying that compensation for loss of income and compensation for permanent disability are distinct heads that can both be awarded. The total compensation was fixed at Rs. 82,83,866 with 7.5% interest.
When an appellate court reduces compensation awarded to a severely disabled accident victim, it must give clear reasons for each cut, and compensation for loss of future income and for permanent disability are separate legal heads, so an award of one does not automatically rule out the other.
