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, a bank employee who was helping run his sister's share-trading firm, had multiple criminal and civil cases filed against him and his family by an aggrieved investor after share-market losses in 1993, including several arrest warrants the appellant alleged were procured illegally through corrupt lawyers and court officials. To expose this alleged racket, the appellant arranged a journalist's "sting operation" that obtained arrest warrants even against a sitting High Court judge and other prominent figures, triggering a Gujarat High Court public interest litigation into the practice. The High Court in 2004 gave various directions (unchallenged) but also directed that the ten pending proceedings against the appellant be disposed of quickly, without expressly addressing the appellant's own plea to have the false cases quashed, since he had only intervened in the PIL rather than formally seeking that relief.
The Supreme Court agreed that the High Court was technically correct that it could not grant quashing relief the appellant never formally prayed for, and noted three of the ten original cases already stood disposed of. However, recognising the appellant as the whistleblower and a person aggrieved by what appeared to be a pattern of illegally obtained warrants (based on the police's own investigation reports placed before the High Court), the Court held he should not be denied the right to challenge the remaining proceedings. It dismissed the appeal but granted the appellant liberty to approach the High Court afresh to seek quashing of five specified pending criminal cases, kept those proceedings stayed for six weeks to allow him to do so, and gave specific directions for the remaining two matters (a civil suit and a cheque-bounce complaint) requiring the courts to first confirm the complainant/plaintiff's continued interest before proceeding.
Even where a litigant has not formally asked a court for a specific relief like quashing of criminal proceedings, a court can still protect that person's underlying right to challenge proceedings that appear to have been initiated through an abuse of process, by granting liberty to pursue that relief properly rather than leaving the person remediless on a technicality.
