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 moreA show-cause notice was issued in 1994 against ANZ Grindlays Bank and some of its officials (including the appellant) for allegedly crediting foreign funds into a non-resident account in violation of FERA, with the charges based on "consent," "connivance," and "negligence." In 2001, the Enforcement Directorate itself dropped the "consent" and "connivance" charges against the appellant. Despite this, when it filed a formal criminal complaint in 2002 (just before FERA proceedings would lapse under a "sunset clause"), the complaint still included all three original allegations and omitted to mention the appellant's reply to an earlier notice. The Delhi High Court declined to fully quash the complaint, ruling that prosecution could continue on the negligence charge alone.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant entirely. It found that the Enforcement Directorate had suppressed material facts, having already dropped the consent/connivance charges, yet still levelled all three allegations in the complaint, and had failed to disclose the appellant's reply or attach a single original document to support the complaint. This raised serious doubt about whether the magistrate had any proper material before him when taking cognizance. Given this suppression and lack of supporting material, the Court held that continuing the prosecution, even limited to the negligence allegation, was not legally tenable.
A prosecuting authority cannot pursue criminal charges it has already formally abandoned, or file a complaint while concealing material facts and without producing supporting documents: courts will quash such proceedings as an abuse of process.
