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 unmarried son, a 26-year-old school teacher, was killed when he was hit by a bus insured by the respondent company while travelling at Hooghly, West Bengal. The appellant filed a compensation claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Kolkata (where the insurance company had its office), and the Tribunal awarded about Rs.16,12,200/- with interest after finding the bus driver rash and negligent. The insurance company appealed solely on the ground that the Kolkata Tribunal lacked territorial jurisdiction since the accident and the claimant's residence were both at Hooghly, and the Calcutta High Court accepted this objection, setting aside the award purely on the jurisdiction point.
The Supreme Court held that under Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, a claim can be filed where the claimant resides, where the accident occurred, or where the defendant (including a company's place of business) resides, so the Kolkata Tribunal, where the insurance company carried on business, did have jurisdiction. Relying on its earlier ruling in Mantoo Sarkar vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and on Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court held that an objection to territorial (as opposed to subject-matter) jurisdiction cannot be used to overturn an award already decided on merits unless the objecting party shows actual prejudice or failure of justice, which the insurance company had not shown here. The Court also distinguished the precedents the insurance company relied on, finding they dealt with genuine lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, not territorial jurisdiction. It held that the compensation provision is a benevolent one for accident victims and should not be read in a hyper-technical way that defeats their remedy. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the Tribunal's original award was restored.
A purely technical objection to which Tribunal or court heard a case will not succeed in undoing an award decided on the merits unless the objecting party can show it was actually prejudiced: accident victims are not required to fight their claim all over again just because of where the case was filed.
