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 moreA woman complained of dowry demands, taunts and harassment by her husband and parents-in-law, including treatment during pregnancy and after the birth of a daughter. She also alleged that her husband and father-in-law forced her to sign a declaration acknowledging return of her jewellery and other personal property. Police filed a chargesheet against all three, and the parents-in-law sought to have the proceedings quashed. The Calcutta High Court removed only the charge of voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323 IPC and required the remaining accusations to proceed to trial, so the parents-in-law appealed.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed all proceedings arising from the FIR insofar as they concerned the two parents-in-law. Examining each remaining offence, it found that the allegations and investigation lacked sufficiently specific acts and supporting material connecting them to statutory cruelty or dowry demands. The record did not identify property entrusted to them and dishonestly misappropriated, or adequately substantiate the alleged criminal intimidation. The Court held that general accusations unsupported by the investigation could not justify putting these appellants through a criminal trial merely because they were relatives of the husband. It expressly confined its ruling to the parents-in-law and left the allegations against the husband and any civil remedies unaffected.
Criminal proceedings against relatives in a matrimonial dispute require a factual basis connecting each person to the alleged offence. This judgment does not give relatives blanket immunity: specific allegations supported by material can justify prosecution, and relief for one accused does not automatically resolve the case against others.
