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 moreThis contempt petition arose out of the decades-long Supreme Court-monitored revival of the cooperative retail chain "Super Bazar." After the Court had earlier approved a bid by M/s Writers and Publisher Pvt Ltd (WPL) to revive Super Bazar, the arrangement ultimately could not be implemented, and in 2016 the Court directed that WPL be refunded its entire investment with 6% interest, minus any profits earned, with the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) appointed to audit and verify the figures. WPL disputed aspects of the CAG's report (denial of interest on share capital, and adjustment for losses rather than only profits) and filed a contempt petition against the Official Liquidator alleging non-compliance with the Court's directions.
The Supreme Court examined the CAG report and agreed with WPL on two points: that interest at 6% should apply to the entire investment including share capital, and that only profits (not losses) earned by WPL from running Super Bazar were to be deducted from its refund, since the 2016 order never contemplated deducting losses. However, on the contempt allegation itself, the Court accepted the Official Liquidator's explanation that the audit process was being carried out through the CAG-nominated auditor as directed, and therefore declined to hold the Official Liquidator in contempt. The Court directed all parties to act in accordance with this clarified interpretation of the 2016 order, and disposed of the contempt petitions.
A contempt petition is meant to punish willful disobedience of a court's order, not to serve as a vehicle to re-litigate a genuine dispute over how an earlier order should be interpreted: here the Court clarified the ambiguity in its own prior directions but still declined to find the liquidator in contempt because he had followed the process the Court itself had set up.
