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, an elected Member of Parliament from Ujjain, faced an election petition that proceeded ex parte against him after a process server reported having personally served him notice; the appellant claimed the notice was instead served on an employee while he was away in Delhi. After the ex parte order was set aside, the original election petitioner alleged the appellant had committed perjury by falsely claiming the notice went to his employee. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, after dismissing the underlying election petition itself, nevertheless authorized its Registrar to file a criminal complaint against the appellant for perjury, and that authorization was the order under appeal.
The Supreme Court held that sanctioning a perjury prosecution is only appropriate where the false statement is deliberate and on a matter of substance, where prosecution is genuinely expedient in the interest of justice, and where there is a reasonable, prima facie foundation for the charge, reaffirming the standard from Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam and Amarsang Nathaji v. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel. It found the High Court's reasoning for ordering prosecution did not meet this threshold, especially since the underlying election petition itself had already been dismissed, making further perjury proceedings unnecessary and inexpedient. The Court accordingly allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and closed the Section 340 Cr.P.C. proceedings against the appellant.
Courts will not casually greenlight a perjury prosecution over a contradictory statement in litigation: there must be a deliberate, substantial falsehood and a genuine, case-specific reason it is in the interest of justice to prosecute, not merely an inconsistency in what a party said.
