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 appellant's father took a life insurance policy from Exide Life Insurance in 2014 and died in an accident in 2015. The insurer repudiated the death claim, alleging the deceased had suppressed material facts by disclosing only one prior policy (from Aviva) while not mentioning smaller policies held with the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Both the State and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions upheld the repudiation, relying on precedent that non-disclosure of prior policies justifies rejection of a claim.
The Supreme Court distinguished this case from precedents involving complete non-disclosure or concealment of health conditions, noting the deceased had made a "substantial disclosure". He disclosed an existing Aviva policy worth Rs. 40 lakhs (a far larger sum than the undisclosed LIC policies totaling about Rs. 2.3 lakhs) and even submitted a copy of that policy to the insurer. Applying the "prudent insurer" test, whether the omitted fact would actually have affected the insurer's decision to issue the policy, the Court held that failing to mention smaller, inconsequential policies would not have influenced a prudent insurer's risk assessment, especially since this was a life policy (not a health/Mediclaim policy) and death occurred by accident, not illness. It found the repudiation improper and ordered the insurer to pay the claim with 9% annual interest.
Not every omission in an insurance proposal form counts as "material suppression" that justifies denying a claim: the test is whether the specific undisclosed fact would genuinely have changed a prudent insurer's decision to issue the policy, and a substantial, good-faith disclosure of the bigger picture can outweigh an omission of minor details.
