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 moreFollowing disputed elections within the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh in mid-2014, two rival claimants, Sunil Gupta (elected on 29.06.2014) and Pratap Mehta (elected at a later, disputed meeting on 02.08.2014), each claimed to be the Council's representative on the Bar Council of India. The Bar Council of India had dismissed Gupta's election petition and upheld Mehta's election, but the Delhi High Court (both a Single Judge and a Division Bench on appeal) held that neither election was valid, since the notice for the 02.08.2014 meeting did not properly include an agenda item for that election, and ordered fresh elections.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had correctly exercised its certiorari jurisdiction, since the Bar Council of India's decision rested on an "error of law apparent on the face of the record": the statutory Bar Council of India Rules require a proper notice with agenda for conducting such an election, and the notices for the 02.08.2014 meeting referred only to resolving member complaints and a no-confidence motion against the Chairman, not to holding a fresh election for the Bar Council of India seat. Since the 29.06.2014 election (of Gupta) had already been held invalid and gone unchallenged, and the 02.08.2014 election (of Mehta) was also invalid for lack of proper notice/agenda, the Court agreed both elections were void and a fresh election was necessary. It rejected arguments that the High Court had improperly re-appreciated evidence, finding instead that the High Court was correcting a legal error, not re-weighing facts. The appeals by Pratap Mehta and the Bar Council of India were dismissed, and a fresh election already conducted on 12.08.2018 (pursuant to the High Court's and Supreme Court's own interim orders) was directed to take effect.
A valid election or decision at an organisational meeting requires that the notice calling the meeting clearly set out the specific business/agenda to be transacted, holding an election on a subject not properly flagged in the meeting notice can render that election void, even if the meeting itself was otherwise properly convened.
