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 Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation had used the trademark "NANDINI" (with a cow device) for milk and milk products since 1985 and held registration for it under Trade Mark Classes 29 and 30. Nandhini Deluxe, a restaurant business, separately adopted the similar-sounding mark "NANDHINI" for its restaurants from 1989 and applied to register it for various foodstuffs it sold. The Federation opposed this registration as deceptively similar and likely to confuse the public, and after losing before the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, successfully got the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) and then the Karnataka High Court to cancel Nandhini Deluxe's registration.
The Supreme Court held that the ingredients required under Section 11(2) of the Trade Marks Act to block registration on grounds of unfair advantage or detriment to a well-known mark's distinctive character had not been satisfied on the facts. It found Nandhini Deluxe had adopted its mark for restaurant food items as early as 1989, close in time to the Federation's own 1985 adoption, with no evidence the Federation's mark had already acquired distinctiveness by then, making this a case of genuine "concurrent use" by two different businesses rather than deliberate imitation. The Court also noted (though did not need to rely on it) that an earlier, final IPAB order between the same parties on an identical issue had gone in Nandhini Deluxe's favour, which would ordinarily act as an estoppel. It set aside the orders of the IPAB and the High Court, allowed the appeals, and restored the Deputy Registrar's original order granting registration to Nandhini Deluxe, subject to a modification excluding certain milk products the appellant had itself abandoned its claim over. No costs were awarded.
Two businesses in genuinely different trades (e.g., dairy products versus restaurants) can validly hold similar-sounding trademarks if each independently and honestly adopted its mark around the same time, without one deliberately copying an already well-established, distinctive brand: trademark protection is not an automatic monopoly over every use of a similar name across unrelated goods and services.
