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 was one of several accused in a 2016 FIR alleging extortion/levy collection in the name of an extremist group, for which a chargesheet had already been filed and he had been granted bail. After the Central Government later added anti-terror (UAPA) offences and directed the NIA to take over investigation, the NIA re-registered the same FIR under a new number and had the appellant produced from jail and remanded to judicial custody. The appellant challenged this re-registration and his fresh remand before the Jharkhand High Court, arguing the NIA could not open a second FIR on the same facts and that he could only be re-arrested after his existing bail was first cancelled; the High Court dismissed his petitions, leading to this appeal.
The Supreme Court held that the NIA's "re-registration" of the FIR, after the Central Government's order bringing in UAPA offences, was a permissible continuation/further investigation rather than an impermissible second FIR on the same facts. On the custody question, the Court clarified the law on Sections 167(2) and 309(2) CrPC, holding that once cognizance has been taken, any further remand of an accused already before the court must be under Section 309(2), not Section 167(2), but found that although the trial court's order had been wrongly treated as one under Section 167, the remand itself was validly sustainable under Section 309(2), so no illegality arose in the result. Finding no merit in either contention, the Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court's judgment.
An investigating agency taking over a case under special legislation (like the NIA Act) can continue/re-register an existing FIR to add newly applicable offences without this amounting to a fresh, independent prosecution; and once a court has taken cognizance of a case, further custody of an already-produced accused is governed by Section 309 CrPC, not Section 167.
