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 owner of a car was driving it, with his brother (the deceased), their wives and children aboard, when the rear tyre burst, the car went out of control, and the driver died of head injuries. The deceased's widow, children and parents claimed compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal awarded them Rs. 25,82,000/-, but the insurer appealed, and the High Court cut the award down to Rs. 2,00,000/-, reading the comprehensive policy's personal-accident add-on as capping the owner-driver's own coverage at that amount.
The Supreme Court noted that neither the insurance policy nor the insurer's written statement had actually been placed on the case record, and that the plea of a Rs. 2,00,000/- limited liability had never been raised before the Tribunal or even in the insurer's memorandum of appeal to the High Court. It surfaced only later. Since there was no negligence by the driver (the accident was caused purely by the tyre burst) and a personal accident cover had admittedly been taken, the Court held there was no basis for the High Court to import a limited-liability defence that was never pleaded or proved. A defence not raised and proved before the trial forum cannot be introduced for the first time in appeal. The Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the Tribunal's full award, with 8% annual interest, to be paid within two months.
An insurance company (or any litigant) must specifically plead and prove a defence like a policy coverage limit at the very first opportunity, before the trial court/tribunal, or it cannot spring that defence later in appeal. For accident victims and their families, this case is a reminder that a full, fair compensation award can be restored if the insurer's technical defence was never properly raised in the first place.
