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 moreAn FIR was lodged alleging that a group of unidentified men forcibly entered a school's office premises looking for certain institutional files, and during the incident allegedly took a cheque book, blank letterheads, stamps, some files, a computer, and cash. The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) quashed most of the charges after the complainant and the accused reached an amicable settlement, but refused to quash the charge of dacoity (a serious offence involving group robbery), reasoning that this particular offence was not "personal" to the complainant since it concerned school property. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court against the continuation of the dacoity charge.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in treating the dacoity charge differently from the rest, since all the offences arose from a single, inseparable transaction. Examining the FIR itself, the Court found that the accused persons' real motive was to retrieve specific institutional documents, not to permanently deprive the school of cash or property for wrongful gain: a key ingredient needed to establish theft, and by extension robbery or dacoity. It also noted that all items taken had been returned, no one was seriously injured, and the complainant had voluntarily confirmed a full and genuine settlement. Given this, the Court used its special constitutional power under Article 142 to quash the entire FIR and all related proceedings, allowing the appeal.
Even a serious-sounding charge like dacoity requires proof of "dishonest intention" to permanently deprive someone of property for wrongful gain. Where the real dispute was over documents rather than theft and has been genuinely settled with everything returned, courts can and will quash the case in the interests of justice, rather than mechanically continuing prosecution on the most severe label attached to the FIR.
