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 moreMallikarjuna, a driver employed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, died of a heart attack while on duty. His widow, Sujatha, filed a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation awarded her Rs. 3,79,120 with 12% interest only if the employer failed to pay within 45 days. The employer's appeal against this award was dismissed by the Karnataka High Court, leading to this further appeal before the Supreme Court; notably, neither side appeared when the case was heard.
The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent factual findings of the Commissioner and the High Court on liability and the amount of compensation, since an appeal under Section 30 of the Act can only raise substantial questions of law, not re-open settled facts. However, it found a legal error in how interest was calculated: relying on earlier binding precedent (a four-judge and a three-judge bench decision), the Court held that an employer's liability to pay compensation, and interest on it, arises from the date of the accident, not from the date of the Commissioner's order or the expiry of a grace period. Even though the widow had not herself appealed this point, the Court modified the order on its own initiative "to do substantial justice," directing that the Rs. 3,79,120 award would carry 12% annual interest from the date of the accident (6 April 1999) rather than from the Commissioner's order, and directed the Commissioner to recalculate the final payable amount accordingly.
In workmen's compensation cases, interest on the compensation amount runs from the date of the accident/death itself, not from the date of the final order, and courts can correct a clear legal error in a party's favour even if that party never formally appealed the specific point, when it is a pure question of law.
