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 moreTwo unemployed graduates took a bank loan and paid Rs. 62 lakhs to buy an advanced photo-processing machine from Agfa India to start a small photography business for their livelihood. The machine never worked to the promised standard despite repeated repair visits, and the sellers later informed them that the original division was being transferred/dissolved, adding further costs. The State Consumer Commission partly ruled in their favour, but the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reversed this, holding that the buyers did not qualify as "consumers" under the Consumer Protection Act because the purchase was for a commercial purpose.
The Supreme Court held that the sole question was whether the appellants were "consumers" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, which excludes commercial purchases but carves out an exception for goods bought exclusively for earning a livelihood through self-employment. The Court found that two unemployed graduates buying one machine to start a small venture, even with the help of an operator or helper, falls within this self-employment exception and does not become a large-scale commercial activity merely because of incidental assistance. It held the National Commission wrongly focused on an isolated reference to "operators and helpers" in the complaint rather than viewing the facts as a whole. Since the matter had been litigated since 2006 and sufficient material was already on record, the Court restored the State Commission's order (with respondents 2-4 jointly and severally liable) instead of remanding.
A person who buys equipment to start a small self-employment venture, even with some hired help to operate it, can still qualify as a "consumer" under the law and claim compensation for a defective product; using an occasional assistant does not automatically turn a livelihood purchase into a disqualifying "commercial" one.
