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 moreA woman died after the Maruti car she was travelling in collided with the back of a truck on a narrow road. Her husband and children filed a compensation claim alleging the truck driver suddenly braked and swerved, causing the crash, but the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal found instead that the car itself had been following the truck too closely and was being driven rashly, and dismissed the claim entirely; the Uttarakhand High Court upheld this finding. The family appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the finding that the car driver, not the truck driver, was at fault.
The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent factual findings of the Tribunal and High Court that the car was following the truck at only 10-15 feet on a 14-foot-wide road, violating the rule requiring a "sufficient distance" between vehicles (Rule 23, Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989), and that there was no evidence the truck driver braked suddenly or negligently. However, the Court noted that the Tribunal had overlooked Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which creates a "no-fault" liability on a vehicle's owner for a fixed, limited compensation regardless of who was actually negligent. Since the subject truck was involved in the accident, its owner and insurer remained liable for this no-fault amount even though the truck driver was not at fault for the accident itself. The Court therefore partly allowed the appeal, awarding Rs. 50,000 under Section 140 with 9% interest from the date of filing, while rejecting the main claim for fault-based compensation.
Under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, a victim of a motor accident can claim a fixed "no-fault" compensation from the vehicle owner/insurer simply because that vehicle was involved in the accident: this is available even in cases where the claimant otherwise loses on the main compensation claim because that particular vehicle's driver is found not negligent.
