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 morePuneet Dalmia, an accused in a CBI chargesheet involving offences under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act pending before a Special Judge in Hyderabad, had been attending trial court in person every Friday since 2013 despite living in Delhi and running several companies. He sought exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 CrPC, offering to appear only through his counsel, but both the trial court and the Telangana High Court rejected this request.
The Supreme Court held that courts have discretion under Section 205 CrPC to dispense with an accused's personal attendance where insisting on it would cause disproportionate hardship, provided safeguards are in place. Noting that the appellant had never tried to delay the trial, already travelled roughly 1,500 km for every hearing since 2013, and that two co-accused in related matters had already been granted similar exemptions, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court and trial court orders. Exemption was granted subject to conditions: the appellant must file an undertaking not to dispute his identity, his counsel must appear and not seek adjournments, he must personally appear for charge-framing and whenever the trial court specifically insists, and the trial court retains power to recall the exemption if delay tactics are suspected.
An accused can be excused from mandatory personal attendance at every hearing under Section 205 CrPC if genuine hardship is shown and adequate safeguards (such as an undertaking and conditions for recall) are offered: personal appearance exists to enable the trial's progress, not merely to record attendance.
