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 Insurance Company challenged a Delhi High Court order upholding a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of compensation for the death of a motorcyclist who was hit from behind and run over by a speeding truck. The Insurance Company's defence was that it had cancelled the truck's insurance policy for non-payment of premium (the premium cheque had bounced) and had informed both the vehicle owner and the transport authority before the accident, so it should not be liable to pay compensation.
The Court agreed that, as a matter of law, an insurer who properly cancels a policy for non-payment of premium and notifies the concerned parties is generally absolved of liability to the third party, relying on its own precedents in Deddappa v. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company and United India Insurance Co. v. Laxmamma. However, following the "pay and recovery" principle established in those very cases, the Court held that the insurer must still first pay the compensation to the accident victim's family and then recover the amount from the vehicle owner. Since the Insurance Company had already paid and the claimants had already received 50% of the award under an earlier court order, the Court ruled that amount would not be reclaimed from the claimants, while the Insurance Company retained the right to recover both the paid and remaining amounts from the vehicle's owner.
Even when an insurance company successfully proves a policy was validly cancelled before an accident, the innocent accident victim (or their family) is still protected: the insurer must pay compensation first and can only recover the money later from the vehicle owner, not deny the victim payment altogether.
