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 practising advocate complained that a police officer, Om Prakash Ambadkar, had humiliated and abused him one night in 2011. When the local police refused to register an FIR, the advocate applied to a Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, which allows a Magistrate to direct police investigation into a cognizable offence. The Magistrate directed registration of an FIR for offences including obscene acts (Section 294 IPC), intentional insult (504), criminal intimidation (506), and defamation (500), without closely examining whether the complaint actually disclosed these offences. The officer's plea to quash the FIR was rejected by the Bombay High Court, leading to this appeal.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed both the FIR and the Magistrate's investigation order. It held that even taking the complainant's allegations at face value, none of the offences were made out: mere abusive or humiliating words are not "obscene acts" under Section 294, and the complaint did not specify what words were actually used, which is essential to assess offences under Sections 504 and 506. The Court reiterated that a Magistrate must apply independent judicial mind before ordering a police investigation under Section 156(3) (it is a discretionary power, not a rubber stamp) and used the case to explain how the newer Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has added fresh safeguards (like requiring an affidavit and hearing the police officer) before such directions can be issued, especially where a public servant is accused of something arising from official duties.
A Magistrate cannot mechanically order a police investigation just because a complainant asks for one under Section 156(3) CrPC: the complaint must actually spell out facts that, if true, would amount to a real criminal offence, and vague allegations of "abuse" or "humiliation" alone are not enough.
