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 moreKerala had notified a scheme reserving the Kottayam-Kozhikode route for its State Transport Undertaking (KSRTC), with only limited overlap allowed for private stage-carriage operators from other routes. A private operator (respondent no.1) obtained a temporary permit from the Regional Transport Authority to ply on this notified route, on the reasoning that KSRTC had not itself applied for or was not utilising a permit there. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal and then the Kerala High Court upheld this grant, prompting KSRTC and the District Transport Officer to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that a temporary permit cannot be granted to a private operator to run on a notified route being served by the State Transport Undertaking beyond the overlap expressly permitted by the scheme (here, 5 km or 5% of the route, whichever is less), doing so would defeat the purpose of the notified scheme, which exists precisely to keep such routes reserved for the STU. It distinguished the precedent the private operator relied on (Punjab Roadways) because that case involved a route split between STU and private operators in a fixed ratio, unlike this scheme, which reserved the whole route for KSRTC. It also declined to consider documents about other temporary permits that were produced only two days before final arguments, without giving KSRTC a fair opportunity to respond. Accordingly, the Court set aside the STAT's order, the RTA's consequent permit grant, and the High Court's judgment, allowing all the appeals.
Where a government transport scheme reserves a route for the state corporation (subject to a defined overlap allowance), private operators cannot use the "no permit applied for" exception to effectively take over that route: the scheme's reservation prevails, and any permit granted beyond the permitted overlap is liable to be struck down.
