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 trader who had been supplying rice bags on credit to the respondent received cheques in payment, which later bounced for insufficient funds. The trial court acquitted the respondent, accepting his defence that he had actually paid in cash for the goods and that the cheques were blank ones left as security that were never returned. The Bombay High Court upheld this acquittal, and the trader-complainant appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that once the complainant proved the cheques were issued and dishonoured, the law creates a statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that they were issued to discharge a legally enforceable debt, and it is then up to the accused to rebut that presumption with credible evidence. The Court found that the receipts produced by the respondent (for cash payments) did not actually disprove the existence of the separate credit debt for which the cheques were issued, and that the lower courts had wrongly shifted the burden back onto the complainant without the respondent having genuinely rebutted the presumption. The Supreme Court therefore set aside the acquittal, convicted the respondent under Section 138, and imposed a fine covering the cheque amounts plus compensation (in lieu of imprisonment, given the long passage of time since the 2003 transactions).
When a cheque bounces, the law presumes it was issued to pay off a genuine debt: the person who issued the cheque bears the burden of proving otherwise with solid evidence; a bare claim that the amount was separately paid in cash, without more, is not enough to escape liability.
