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 moreDaffodills, a pharmaceutical supplier, won a tender to supply medicines to U.P. government hospitals after declaring that no criminal case was pending against the firm or its directors. The State later directed all its hospitals to stop all local purchases from Daffodills indefinitely, after a CBI case was registered against Surender Chaudhary, a man who had already resigned as the company's director back in 2012, in connection with a separate National Rural Health Mission investigation. The Allahabad High Court upheld this directive without requiring the State to first give Daffodills any notice or hearing, reasoning that courts have limited power to review the State's contractual/commercial decisions.
The Supreme Court held that even though the State characterized its order as a mere procurement directive rather than formal "blacklisting," in substance it functioned as an indefinite debarment: arguably harsher than a typical blacklisting order, which usually has a fixed three-to-five-year duration. Citing settled precedent that blacklisting or debarring a contractor is a drastic step that can only be taken after giving the affected party a hearing and an opportunity to represent its case, the Court held that cutting off Daffodills' business indefinitely, based solely on a case against a director who had left the company years earlier, without any notice or hearing, violated this basic principle of natural justice. The Court also held the High Court was wrong to treat its review power as too limited to intervene, since the violation here was not of commercial judgment but of a fundamental procedural safeguard. Rather than merely quashing the order and sending it back for a fresh hearing, which would have meant further delay after the order had already been in effect for over four years, the Court directly quashed the debarment order and the High Court's judgment, allowing the appeal.
Before any government authority bars, blacklists, or cuts off business dealings with a contractor, even informally, without using the word "blacklist", it must first give that party notice and a genuine opportunity to be heard; skipping this step makes the action legally unsustainable regardless of how the order is labelled.
