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, a Chief Executive Trustee of a charitable trust running schools in Kerala, was named in an FIR alleging he and others had siphoned off about Rs. 42 lakh from the trust's bank accounts. He, in turn, filed a separate FIR against the trust's Treasurer (respondent No. 3) alleging that the Treasurer was the one who had actually committed the fraud. The Treasurer approached the Kerala High Court to quash this second FIR on the ground that he could not be tried twice for the same incident, and the High Court agreed and quashed it.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had committed a jurisdictional error by quashing the second FIR without properly applying the settled law on multiple FIRs, particularly the three-judge bench decision in Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, which permits a counter-complaint/FIR giving a different version of the same incident. The Court found that the second FIR was a genuine counter-complaint filed by a different person (the appellant, not the original complainant), based on a different set of allegations against a different person (the Treasurer), making it legally maintainable rather than a prohibited duplicate FIR. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's quashing order was set aside, and the case was restored to the Magistrate's court for trial on merits, to be completed within one year.
Filing a second FIR relating to the same incident is not automatically barred: a genuine counter-complaint by a different person, alleging a different version of events against a different accused, is legally permissible and must be tried on its merits rather than quashed at the threshold.
