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 commercial dispute arose over coal-supply transactions, with the plaintiff suing the defendant distillery companies for recovery of about Rs. 19.5 crore. The plaintiff obtained an ex-parte interim prohibitory order restraining a third party (TASMAC, which allegedly owed the defendants about Rs. 24 crore) from paying the defendants, to secure the plaintiff's claim amount. The defendants' attempt to vacate this order failed before both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, leading them to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court declined to rule on whether the prohibitory order itself satisfied the legal requirements of Order 37 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, since the underlying suit was still at an early stage (no written statement filed, trial not begun) and any factual observations could prejudice the parties. Instead, it accepted the defendants' alternative request to convert the restraint into a security arrangement: the appeal was disposed of by directing the defendants to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 10 crore and solvent security for the balance of the suit amount within three months, on compliance with which the prohibitory order would stand set aside. The trial court was asked to decide the underlying suit on its merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a year, uninfluenced by the Supreme Court's order.
When a dispute is only at the interim-relief stage and the main suit hasn't gone to trial, courts often prefer a practical middle path, like converting a freezing/prohibitory order into a bank guarantee or security deposit, rather than deciding disputed facts or legal questions prematurely, which protects both the claimant's interest and the defendant's ability to access funds.
