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 respondent, an advocate who had earlier worked as the appellant seed company's legal counsel, was alleged to have fabricated a story about fictitious criminal cases and warrants against the company's executives, inducing the company to pay large sums for hundreds of fabricated criminal petitions that never actually needed filing. The Karnataka State Bar Council's Disciplinary Committee found him guilty of professional misconduct and debarred him for life, but on statutory appeal the Bar Council of India (BCI) reduced this to an 18-month debarment with a fine. The advocate then filed a review petition before the BCI itself, which unusually allowed the review and set aside its own earlier order, directing fresh consideration, and it was this review order that the company challenged before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the BCI's Disciplinary Committee had shown "undue indulgence" to the respondent by reviewing and overturning its own earlier finding on the very same material and arguments that had already been considered, effectively letting the wrongdoer benefit from his own misconduct, invoking the legal maxim that no one can take advantage of his own wrong. The Court noted serious aggravating facts, including that the respondent had been convicted by a trial court and separately held guilty of contempt and sentenced to imprisonment by the Karnataka High Court for producing a fabricated court order, though it declined to comment further since related proceedings were still pending elsewhere. The Court set aside the BCI's review order, reviving the BCI's original 2011 order (18-month debarment and fine), while clarifying that this reduced punishment would itself remain subject to the outcome of a separate, still-pending appeal by the company contesting the leniency of that punishment.
A disciplinary body cannot use its review power to re-examine the same facts and arguments it has already decided simply to give a wrongdoer a second chance, doing so lets the wrongdoer profit from manipulation of the process, which the law does not permit.
