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 lower division clerk at the Passport Office, Thiruvananthapuram, was convicted for demanding and accepting Rs.200 as illegal gratification on top of the lawful Rs.1000 passport fee from an applicant who needed a passport urgently, after a CBI trap caught him receiving the money. Both the Trial Court and the Kerala High Court upheld the conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. During trial, the complainant turned hostile and did not support the prosecution's claim that a bribe had been demanded. The convict died during the pendency of proceedings, and this appeal was pursued by his widow, Mini.
The Supreme Court held that once the complainant failed to support the demand of bribe at trial, the courts below were required to carefully scrutinise the accused's explanation under Section 313 CrPC: that he believed the money handed to him (two Rs.500 notes with two Rs.100 notes tucked between them) was only the Rs.1000 lawful passport fee, and that he was unaware of the extra Rs.200. The Court noted there was no independent evidence that the money had been counted in the accused's presence, and that the complainant himself later claimed he had been misled by a CBI-linked person into trapping the accused, which should have made the courts cautious about his testimony. Since the lawful fee itself (Rs.1000) formed the bulk of the amount recovered and the demand for the extra Rs.200 was not proved beyond doubt, the Court found the accused's defence plausible and held that the benefit of doubt ought to have been given. The appeal was allowed, and the convictions by both the Trial Court and the High Court were set aside, with the deceased accused treated as acquitted of all charges.
In bribery prosecutions, proof of "demand" is essential and cannot be assumed merely from recovery of money, especially where the amount recovered largely represents a legitimate payment and the complainant does not support the prosecution's version at trial; a plausible defence explanation must be seriously weighed before a conviction is sustained.
