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's insured truck was stolen in Rajasthan. He spent several days assisting the police in searching for the vehicle before returning home and filing his insurance claim eight days after the theft. Although the insurer's own investigator verified the theft was genuine and a company manager approved payment of Rs. 7,85,000, the insurer ultimately repudiated the claim on the technical ground that the policy required "immediate" notice of the loss. The consumer forums at all three levels (District, State and National) rejected the appellant's complaint, upholding the repudiation.
The Supreme Court held that a person who loses a vehicle will naturally first try to trace it before filing an insurance claim, and that an 8-day delay, fully and credibly explained by the appellant's efforts, at the police's own request, to help search for the truck, was not unreasonable. The Court held that an insurer cannot mechanically reject a claim on a purely technical delay ground once the claim has otherwise been verified as genuine by its own investigator; doing so undermines public confidence in insurance and defeats the consumer-protection purpose of the law. The Court set aside the orders of all three consumer fora, allowed the claim, and directed the insurer to pay the approved sum of Rs. 7,85,000 plus Rs. 50,000 compensation, with 8% annual interest from the date the claim was filed.
An insurance company cannot refuse to pay an otherwise genuine, verified claim just because of a short, reasonably-explained delay in reporting the loss: technical policy conditions should not be used to defeat claims that have already been shown to be true.
