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 moreIn a 1995 road accident, an oil tanker rammed head-on into a car driven by Shri Rajpal Singh Johal, a 38-year-old General Manager (Marketing), killing him and injuring his family. His parents, wife and children filed separate compensation claims before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which jointly awarded about Rs 37.71 lakh with 12% interest. On cross-appeals, the Punjab and Haryana High Court enhanced the award to Rs 48 lakh (applying the Supreme Court's standardised Pranay Sethi/Sarla Verma formula for future prospects, multiplier and conventional heads) but reduced the interest rate to 7.5%. Both the insurer (seeking a reduction, including deduction of an ex gratia payment from the employer) and the claimants (seeking restoration of the higher interest rate) appealed further to the Supreme Court.
The Court held that the Tribunal's original award suffered from genuine computational errors (using projected future salary without separately adding future prospects, no tax deduction, wrong personal-expense ratio), whereas the High Court's recalculation was substantially consistent with the Pranay Sethi principles, even if arguably somewhat conservative on future prospects. On the insurer's argument that the ex gratia amount paid by the employer should be deducted, the Court distinguished its own precedent in Shashi Sharma (which concerned a structured statutory compassionate-assistance scheme) and held that an ordinary, one-time ex gratia payment unconnected to continuing statutory financial assistance need not be deducted from motor accident compensation. Finding the High Court's award of Rs 48 lakh with 7.5% interest to be fair, reasonable "just compensation" under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Court dismissed both cross-appeals and left the High Court's award undisturbed.
In motor accident death claims, courts apply standardised formulas (age-based multiplier, percentage addition for future prospects, fixed conventional heads) to keep compensation consistent and fair, and a one-time ex gratia payment from an employer is ordinarily not deducted from such compensation unless it forms part of a continuing statutory benefit scheme.
