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 had lodged an FIR alleging that after a birthday party in 2003, Respondent No. 2, with whom she had been in a relationship, drove her to his home under the pretext of going elsewhere, forcibly took her inside, removed her clothes, beat her with a belt and touched her inappropriately. Respondent No. 2 was initially charged, among other things, under Section 366 IPC (kidnapping/abducting a woman to compel marriage or illicit intercourse), but the Sessions Court discharged him of that charge, and the Bombay High Court upheld the discharge. The appellant (the complainant) challenged that discharge order before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that mere abduction is not enough to attract Section 366 IPC: the prosecution must show the accused intended to compel the woman into marriage, or to force or seduce her into illicit intercourse, or knew this was likely. Examining the record, the Court found that the allegations of molestation and inappropriate touching were added only at a later stage, while the core, contemporaneously witnessed fact (by a watchman) was only that Respondent No. 2 forcibly took her to his house, not that he intended forced marriage or illicit intercourse, especially since the two were already in a known relationship. The Court agreed with the High Court that the Section 366 charge could not be sustained on these facts and was, at best, an afterthought layered onto what appeared to be a relationship gone wrong. The appeal was dismissed and the discharge upheld, but the Court directed the trial court to conclude the pending trial (on the remaining charges) within six months, clarifying that its observations were limited to the applicability of Section 366 only and that the trial court must decide the rest of the case on its own merits.
A criminal charge under provisions like Section 366 IPC requires proof of the specific intent the statute demands (here, intent to compel marriage or illicit intercourse): forcibly taking someone somewhere, by itself, does not automatically satisfy a charge that requires a further, distinct criminal purpose.
