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 moreIn a dispute connected to an arbitration between M/s Ace Enterprises and others, the Court of Small Causes, Srinagar, had stayed certain arbitration proceedings by an interim injunction order dated 22.06.2011. When the arbitration nonetheless continued, the respondent filed what it called a "contempt" application against the appellants; the trial court examined it and held there was no willful violation, dismissing the application. The respondent challenged this before the Jammu & Kashmir High Court, which held that a subordinate court has no power to punish contempt of itself under the J&K Contempt of Courts Act (only the High Court can), and stayed the arbitrator's award pending the contempt proceedings' outcome.
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's legal position that a trial court cannot try contempt of its own orders, but clarified that the application filed here was never really a contempt petition in substance: it was, in effect, an application for action under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Jammu and Kashmir Code of Civil Procedure (the specific provision dealing with disobedience of an injunction), merely mislabelled as "contempt." The Court therefore disposed of the appeal by directing that the application be treated and renumbered as an Order XXXIX Rule 2A application, with the trial court first examining whether there was disobedience of the injunction and then proceeding accordingly if it found disobedience. It left the appellants' separate arguments (about distinct contracts and a pending arbitration-related application) open to be raised before the trial court, and directed the trial court to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within three months, given the long pendency.
Mislabeling an application (e.g., calling it "contempt" when it is really a request to enforce an injunction) does not deprive a litigant of a remedy: courts will look at the substance of what is sought and direct it to be decided under the correct legal provision rather than dismissing it on a technicality.
