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, P. Nallammal, is the wife of a former Tamil Nadu MLA and minister who was convicted of amassing assets disproportionate to his known income while in public office. She was convicted of abetting him under the Prevention of Corruption Act by allowing the disproportionate assets to be registered in her name and her children's names. The trial court and the Madras High Court both upheld her conviction and one-year sentence; separately, an order had attached the family's disproportionate assets, and a related administrative order had restored the case for fresh hearing after irregularities with a retired judge's undelivered judgment came to light.
The two-judge bench agreed on the valuation and finding that the family's assets were indeed disproportionate to known income, and unanimously dismissed the appeals relating to the asset-attachment order and the administrative order for fresh hearing. However, the judges split on the core question of the wife's personal guilt: Justice Amanullah's judgment held that mere registration of disproportionate assets in a spouse's name, without proof she knew the money's source was illicit, was not enough to convict her of abetment, and voted to acquit her. Justice Dhulia disagreed, reasoning that since corruption cases under Section 13(1)(e) reverse the normal burden of proof, and given the surrounding circumstances of a spousal relationship, culpability can be inferred from conduct even without direct evidence of abetment, and he would have upheld her conviction. Because of this split, the appeal on her conviction (arising from SLP (Crl) No. 2127/2024) was referred to the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions rather than being finally decided by this bench.
In corruption cases against public servants, the reversed burden of proof does not automatically extend to convict family members in whose names assets are held. Courts must still separately assess whether that individual knowingly participated in concealing illicit wealth, and reasonable judges can differ sharply on this point, sometimes requiring reference to a larger bench.
