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 appellant, a trading member of the National Stock Exchange, was found guilty of financial irregularities by NSE's Disciplinary Action Committee and was fined Rs. 10 lakh and suspended from trading membership for five days. The Securities Appellate Tribunal rejected the appellant's appeal against this penalty. The appellant challenged that rejection before the Supreme Court, arguing that under NSE's own June 2013 circular, the maximum permissible fine for the alleged misconduct was Rs. 1 lakh (or 0.1% of the value of misuse, whichever is higher) and that suspension of trading membership was not even a contemplated penalty for this kind of violation.
The Supreme Court found that the appellant had specifically raised this argument, that the penalty circular capped the fine and did not authorize suspension, before the Appellate Tribunal, but the Tribunal never actually examined this contention, instead rejecting the appeal on the vague ground that the penalty was not "unreasonable or excessive." The Court held this amounted to a failure to deal with a squarely raised and material argument. It set aside the Tribunal's order and allowed the civil appeal, but limited the relief to sending the matter back to the Appellate Tribunal solely to reconsider the quantum of punishment in light of the circular's monetary cap and the restriction on suspension.
A tribunal cannot dismiss an appeal while ignoring a party's specific, clearly articulated legal argument: if a regulator's own rules cap a penalty, that cap must actually be examined and applied, not glossed over with a generic finding that the punishment "seems reasonable."
