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 Coimbatore-based proprietary business had taken a loan from Kotak Mahindra Bank, with the loan, mortgage, and EMI deductions all connected to the bank's Coimbatore branch. When a cheque was dishonoured, however, the Bank filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in a Chandigarh court, since that was where its cheque-collection branch was located. The petitioner sought to have the case transferred out of Chandigarh, citing the distance, language barrier, personal safety concerns, and the fact that none of the underlying transaction had occurred there.
The Supreme Court explained that Section 142(2)(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act (introduced by a 2015 amendment, enacted after an earlier Supreme Court ruling had caused jurisdictional confusion) fixes jurisdiction for a cheque-bounce case at the place where the cheque was presented for collection through the payee's own bank account, not where the loan was granted or the underlying transaction occurred. Since the Bank's Chandigarh branch was a valid collection point, the Chandigarh court had jurisdiction. The Court further held that mere inconvenience or hardship in travelling to a distant court does not meet the legal standard of being "expedient for the ends of justice" required to transfer a criminal case under Section 406 CrPC; the petitioner could instead seek exemption from personal appearance or permission to join proceedings online. The transfer petition and all connected petitions were dismissed.
In cheque-dishonour cases, the criminal complaint can be validly filed wherever the payee's bank presents the cheque for collection, even if that is far from where the loan or transaction actually took place; personal inconvenience alone is not a valid ground to have such a case transferred to a more convenient court.
