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 man riding his scooter was fatally hit from behind by a speeding car in Hyderabad in 2011. His widow and children sought compensation from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), which awarded them over Rs. 33 lakh after finding the insured car responsible. The insurance company appealed to the Telangana High Court, which set aside the award against it, disbelieving the main eyewitness because he came forward with the vehicle's registration number only two-and-a-half months after the accident, and holding the claimants had failed to prove which car actually caused the accident.
The Supreme Court restored the Tribunal's award, allowing the appeal. While it agreed the eyewitness's delayed disclosure of the registration number raised genuine doubts, it held that other circumstances tipped the balance in the claimants' favour: a police charge-sheet had been filed against the driver of the insured car, a mechanical inspection showed a bent bumper consistent with a collision, and the vehicle's owner never appeared before any court (MACT, High Court, or Supreme Court) to deny involvement, despite proper notice, and had reportedly acknowledged to police that his driver admitted causing the accident. The Court held that in motor accident claims, liability is decided on a "preponderance of probabilities" (not the stricter criminal standard), and an owner's persistent silence and non-appearance can be weighed against him.
In compensation claims after an accident, courts look at the whole picture, including whether the vehicle owner shows up to defend the case, rather than rejecting a claim solely because one witness's account has a suspicious delay; total silence from the other side can itself support the claim.
