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 partnership firm running a bar in Kollam, Kerala, had its FL-3 liquor licence renewal refused because one of its partners owed about Rs. 70 lakh in old "abkari" (excise) arrears from a separate business, and a licensing rule barred renewal unless 50% of such arrears were cleared. The firm got interim High Court orders allowing renewal each year on condition of depositing extra amounts, eventually totalling Rs. 50 lakh, while its writ petition and appeal challenging the refusal were ultimately dismissed by the Kerala High Court.
The Supreme Court held that under the Indian Partnership Act, a partnership is a "totality of its partners," so one partner's unpaid excise dues could validly disqualify the whole firm from licence renewal under the relevant proviso: the High Court's view was correct and required no interference. On the firm's separate request (after the defaulting partner later settled his dues at a discount under a government Amnesty Scheme) for return of the Rs. 50 lakh deposited earlier, the Court held that money had already been lawfully appropriated towards interest due at the time it was paid, so the subsequent Amnesty Scheme settlement (covering only interest outstanding as of 2008) could not retroactively entitle the firm to a refund. The appeal was dismissed, and the firm was directed to redeposit the Rs. 50 lakh (which it had earlier received back as an interim measure) with 6% interest within six weeks.
A partnership firm is only as compliant as all of its partners put together: the financial misconduct or unpaid dues of even one partner can block the whole firm's licence, and later availing of a government settlement/amnesty scheme does not undo payments that were already validly applied to dues existing before the scheme began.
