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 accused had borrowed Rs. 2,00,000 from the complainant for business expenses and issued a post-dated cheque to repay it, but the cheque bounced twice for insufficient funds. After a statutory demand notice went unanswered with full payment, the complainant filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused's defence, that the cheque had actually been stolen by the complainant, was rejected by the trial court, which convicted him and imposed a fine, a conviction upheld on first appeal; however, the High Court, in a criminal revision petition, set aside the conviction.
The Supreme Court held that once the complainant proved issuance of the cheque and its dishonour, Section 139 of the Act raises a statutory presumption that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt, which then shifts the burden onto the accused to rebut it. Since the accused neither led any evidence nor otherwise explained how the presumption could be displaced on the complainant's own testimony, and since his "stolen cheque" defence had already been disbelieved by two courts, the Court found no legal basis for the High Court to have exercised its limited revisional jurisdiction to overturn a concurrent finding of conviction. The Court explained that revisional jurisdiction is not meant to be used as a second appeal for re-appreciating evidence, and the High Court had failed to identify any error of law or jurisdiction that would justify interference. It therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the conviction recorded by the trial court as affirmed on first appeal.
Once a cheque and its dishonour are proved, the law presumes it was issued against a genuine debt, and it is the accused, not the complainant, who must come forward with evidence to rebut that presumption; a bare denial without proof will not succeed, and a High Court cannot casually overturn such a conviction in revision merely by re-weighing the same evidence.
