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, an Assistant Superintendent at Chennai Port Trust, was convicted for abetting her then-husband (a Divisional Manager at United India Insurance Co. Ltd.) in acquiring assets disproportionate to his known income between 2002 and 2009. Investigators found movable and immovable property worth over Rs. 37 lakh held in her name, allegedly to help her husband conceal his illicit wealth. Both the Trial Court and the Madras High Court had upheld her conviction under Section 109 IPC read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and she appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that a person, even a non-public servant, can be convicted of abetment of a disproportionate-assets offence, relying on its earlier ruling in P. Nallammal v. State (1999). The Court found the appellant had actively helped conceal her husband's disproportionate wealth by holding assets in her own name, which squarely amounted to abetment under Section 109 IPC. It rejected her argument that she could not be liable merely because the properties were bought by her husband, and also dismissed her claim that she was no longer his wife (he had since remarried) as irrelevant, since she was his wife when the offence occurred. The appeal was dismissed and she was directed to surrender within four weeks.
A spouse (or any person) who knowingly allows ill-gotten, disproportionate wealth to be parked in their own name can be criminally liable for abetment, even if they did not personally earn or steal the money: passive facilitation of concealment is enough to attract liability.
