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 appellants, who were setting up a three-year law course, were accused of cheating and forgery after a student complained to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Unnao that she had been misled into enrolling in an unrecognised institution. The Magistrate directed the police the same day to register an FIR, without any further inquiry. The appellants sought to have the FIR and prosecution quashed, arguing (among other things) that the institution was in fact in the process of securing proper affiliation and no-objection approvals, and that other enrolled students had no complaints. The High Court declined to quash the proceedings, and the appellants approached the Supreme Court.
Rather than examining the merits of the fraud allegations, the Supreme Court focused on a purely procedural defect: under the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an Executive Magistrate (such as a Sub-Divisional Magistrate) has no power to simply direct police to register an FIR on the basis of a private complaint. That power belongs either to the police under Section 154, or to a Judicial Magistrate acting under Section 156(3) or Section 200 after taking cognizance. Because the FIR here had been registered solely on the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's direction, without any of the legally recognised routes being followed, the Court held the FIR's very registration was without jurisdiction and contrary to law. The impugned High Court order was set aside and the FIR quashed, but the Court expressly gave the complainant liberty to pursue a fresh, properly-instituted complaint through the correct legal channel (the police directly, Section 156(3), or a Magistrate's complaint under Section 200).
An FIR triggered merely by an Executive Magistrate's direction, rather than by the police, a Judicial Magistrate's order under Section 156(3), or a proper complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., can be quashed for being procedurally invalid, regardless of how serious the underlying allegations are, though the complainant remains free to re-file through the correct channel.
