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 moreKiran Pal Singh was elected as Pramukh (head) of the Kshettra Panchayat of Vikash Khand Gulawati, District Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh, in 2015. Some panchayat members later moved a no-confidence motion against him before the District Magistrate under the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961. He challenged the resulting proceedings, arguing among other things that the law barred a fresh no-confidence notice from being received within one year of an earlier notice under Section 15(2), and that this bar had been violated.
The Supreme Court held that the statutory bar under Section 15(12) of the Act, against a fresh no-confidence notice within a year, only applies where an earlier no-confidence meeting had actually been convened and either failed to carry the motion, or could not be held for want of quorum. On the facts, no such meeting had ever been convened on the earlier notice, so the bar never came into play; merely lodging a notice with the Collector, without a meeting taking place, does not trigger the one-year restriction. The Court traced the constitutional basis for Panchayati Raj institutions (the 73rd Amendment and Article 40) and explained that while the law protects a Pramukh's five-year tenure for administrative stability, it equally allows removal through a valid no-confidence vote to preserve grassroots democratic accountability. Finding no merit in the appellant's technical objection, the Court dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.
A procedural safeguard meant to protect an elected local official from repeated no-confidence attempts (the one-year "cooling off" bar) only kicks in once a no-confidence meeting has genuinely been held and failed: simply filing a notice that is never acted upon does not by itself block a later, properly convened no-confidence motion.
