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 claimants (wife and family of a deceased man) sought compensation alleging he died in a hit-and-run road accident, with a neighbour claiming to be an eyewitness. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded them Rs. 16,02,000, rejecting the insurance company's objection that the accident and the vehicle's involvement were fabricated. The insurer appealed, and the High Court reversed the award, holding that the accident and the vehicle's involvement were not proved.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's reversal and dismissed the claimants' appeal. It found the eyewitness's testimony unbelievable and self-contradictory. She claimed to have fetched the victim's daughter from school before the vehicle and victim disappeared, yet also claimed she and the daughter had noted down the vehicle number, an impossibility given her own timeline. The FIR was registered at a police station lacking jurisdiction and was transferred to the correct station only after 117 days, with no explanation offered. The Court also noted the driver of the alleged offending vehicle had been acquitted in the related criminal case. It held that while proof in accident claims rests on preponderance of probability, that standard fails where the genuineness of the FIR itself is under valid suspicion and the evidence reveals inherent falsity.
In motor accident claims, compensation cannot rest on a "preponderance of probabilities" standard if the foundational evidence, the FIR and eyewitness testimony, is internally inconsistent or its genuineness is seriously doubtful; courts will scrutinise chance witnesses and unexplained delays in FIR registration closely.
