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 media company held an insurance policy (dated 15.10.2010) that clearly covered it against loss from storm, flood and similar perils. After a cyclone damaged property in Kochi on 17.10.2010, the insurer paid out the resulting claim (finally settled on 31.05.2011). Anticipating further claims from future storms, the insurer unilaterally deleted the words covering "storm" damage from the policy through an endorsement dated 18.10.2010, after the policy period had already begun, without the policyholder's consent. The appellant objected to this change, and when a storm later struck Goa on 24.10.2010, the insurer relied on the deleted coverage to resist a fresh claim. The appellant's writ petition challenging the unilateral deletion as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 was dismissed by both the Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court as a non-maintainable contractual dispute.
The Supreme Court held that there was no real dispute about the facts: the insurer had unilaterally altered a material term of an existing policy without the insured's consent, which amounted to an arbitrary act under Article 14, and the Court's own precedents already establish that in certain areas even private entities performing public-facing functions can be tested against Article 14 standards. Since the facts were not in dispute, the High Court was wrong to treat this purely as a private contractual matter outside writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court therefore allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court's judgment, and directed that the insurer now process the appellant's pending claim arising from the Goa storm.
An insurer (or any body performing functions with a public character) cannot unilaterally rewrite the terms of an already-running policy to its own advantage without the policyholder's consent: such one-sided changes can be challenged as arbitrary even through a writ petition, not only through an ordinary civil suit.
