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 moreAn FIR was lodged against Kuldeep Singh alleging he had abducted a woman who worked at an insurance company. Kuldeep's case was that he and the woman had married each other by their own free will under Sikh rites, against her family's wishes, and had even obtained police protection from the High Court as a couple. After returning to her parental home, the woman gave a statement alleging rape and forced marriage, and additional charges (including against Kuldeep's mother and brother) were added. A police investigation (via a Special Investigation Team) found the marriage was consensual and cleared the mother and brother entirely, leaving only the rape and criminal-intimidation charges against Kuldeep. The High Court refused to quash the FIR, so Kuldeep appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR. It noted that neither the complainant nor the alleged victim appeared before the Court despite notice, and that the victim's own written statement (filed in Kuldeep's separate case for restitution of conjugal rights) made no allegation of rape or forced marriage. Since the investigation had already confirmed the marriage was voluntary, the Court held that Kuldeep, being the woman's legally wedded husband, fell within Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC, meaning intercourse with his own wife cannot legally constitute rape. With no prima facie case remaining, continuing the prosecution would serve no purpose.
Under the law as it stood at the time (Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC), sexual relations between legally married spouses could not be prosecuted as rape, and courts can quash a "dead" criminal case where the complainant and victim decline to pursue it and the marriage's voluntary nature has already been established by investigation.
