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 moreOn 16 July 2018, acting on a tip-off, Kolkata police intercepted Nadeem Ahamed and a co-accused, Amit Dutta, near Pragati Maidan and recovered heroin allegedly weighing 125 grams and 130 grams respectively from their persons. Because the combined weight (255 grams) exceeded the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act, the trial court convicted both men under Sections 21(c) and 29 (criminal conspiracy) and sentenced Ahamed to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. His appeal to the Calcutta High Court was filed 1,183 days late due to his financial difficulties while in custody, and the High Court dismissed it solely on grounds of delay without examining the merits.
The Supreme Court first held that dismissing the appeal purely for delay was too harsh given the appellant's incarceration and indigence, and proceeded to decide the case on merits itself rather than remand it (to avoid further delay). On merits, the Court held the trial court erred in clubbing the drugs recovered from the two individually-searched accused to meet the "commercial quantity" threshold: mere presence together, without positive evidence of prior knowledge or conspiracy, cannot support a Section 29 conspiracy charge (relying on Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot v. State of Gujarat). Separately, and more decisively, the Court found serious lapses in the seizure and sampling procedure: only one sample (not the mandatory duplicate) was drawn from each packet in violation of the 1989 Standing Order, the accused's signatures were missing from the sample packet labels despite the seizure officer's claim otherwise, and, most critically, no representative samples were drawn nor inventory prepared before a Magistrate as required by Section 52A of the NDPS Act. These cumulative failures rendered the FSL (forensic) report and the entire seizure process unreliable. The Court quashed the conviction and acquitted Ahamed, ordering his immediate release.
In NDPS prosecutions, strict procedural compliance in seizing and sampling narcotics (duplicate samples, magistrate-certified inventories, and accused's signatures on seized material) is essential: cumulative procedural lapses can render even a positive forensic report unreliable and lead to acquittal; and courts should be cautious about clubbing contraband recovered separately from co-accused to meet a "commercial quantity" threshold without actual proof of conspiracy.
