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 filed a private criminal complaint alleging that a Kannada newspaper, "Jaya Kirana," published a defamatory news item about him in 2013. He sued the newspaper's owner (the respondent) under IPC provisions for defamation, printing defamatory material, and selling such material. A magistrate took cognizance of the complaint, but the Karnataka High Court later quashed the proceedings against the owner, reasoning, in a notably brief and conclusory judgment, that a prior Supreme Court ruling about newspaper "editors" (as opposed to owners) did not apply, and that prosecuting the owner would cause a "miscarriage of justice."
The Supreme Court found the High Court's judgment legally unsound and poorly reasoned. It clarified that the earlier precedent relied on by the High Court (K.M. Mathew's case) dealt only with whether a "Chief Editor" could claim the same statutory immunity as a formally-designated "Editor" under the Press and Registration of Books Act: it had nothing to do with whether a newspaper's owner could be criminally prosecuted. The Court held that whether the respondent-owner could be held liable for printing, publishing, or selling defamatory material depends on evidence to be assessed at trial (such as whether he directed or controlled those activities through his employees), not on a summary dismissal at the quashing stage. Since the High Court gave no genuine legal reasoning for its "miscarriage of justice" conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the complaint, and directed the trial court to proceed with the case.
A newspaper's owner is not automatically immune from criminal defamation liability just because only "editors" carry a specific statutory presumption of responsibility, whether an owner who employs staff to print, publish, and sell a newspaper can be held liable is a fact-specific question for trial, and High Courts cannot short-circuit that process with unreasoned, one-line "miscarriage of justice" findings when quashing a criminal complaint.
