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 married couple, both US green-card holders, had two minor children born in the United States who held US citizenship. After their marriage broke down, a custody dispute arose, leading to habeas corpus proceedings in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh/Telangana, with cross-appeals reaching the Supreme Court. Despite extended efforts at mediation and reconciliation before the Supreme Court, the parties could not resolve their differences, leaving the children's welfare and nationality status at the centre of the dispute.
The Supreme Court examined the matter through the lens of the best interests of the children, noting they were US citizens whose lives, schooling and social environment were rooted in the US. The Court directed the mother to return to the US with both children within six weeks, with the father bearing all travel and stay costs; if she declined to travel, the father was to deposit Rs. 15 lakhs for her and arrange for the children to be handed over to the US Consulate for return to the jurisdiction of the US court, where the custody dispute would be finally decided on merits. The Court clarified its observations were only for the limited purpose of the habeas corpus proceeding and would not bind the US court's eventual decision.
In cross-border custody disputes, Indian courts focus on the best interests of the child rather than parental convenience, and will often direct the matter back to the court of the child's "natural" or habitual residence (here, the US) for final adjudication rather than deciding custody permanently themselves.
