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 moreN. Vijay Kumar (accused) and Vishwanath Rao N. (complainant) had a decade-long friendship. The complainant claimed he lent Rs. 20 lakh to the accused to help produce a Kannada film, in return for which the accused issued a cheque that was later dishonoured for insufficient funds. The accused denied this, claiming the cheque was one of two blank cheques handed over years earlier as security for a much smaller loan of Rs. 3.5 lakh, which had already been fully settled through a signed Memorandum of Understanding, and that the cheques had allegedly been "lost" by the complainant, a loss he had reported to the police. The trial court acquitted the accused, but the Karnataka High Court reversed this and convicted him under Section 138.
The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It held that once the accused raised a probable defence rebutting the presumption of a legally enforceable debt (under Section 139 of the Act), the burden shifted back to the complainant to actually prove the loan. The complainant failed to do so. He produced no supporting documents such as income-tax records or account books, and did not examine any of the "well-wishers" he claimed were present when the cheque was handed over, despite naming them. On this evidentiary gap, the Court held the High Court's conviction was unjustified and the trial court's acquittal correct.
In a cheque-bounce case, the law initially presumes the cheque was issued for a genuine debt, but once the accused raises a credible, probable defence, the complainant must back up the claimed transaction with real evidence: bald assertions, without documents or corroborating witnesses, are not enough to sustain a conviction.
