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 filed a criminal complaint alleging that his land was fraudulently sold and mutated in favour of respondent no. 1, and that he was also threatened and insulted because of his caste under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. A Magistrate initially dismissed the complaint for lack of proof of caste status, but the Sessions Court, in revision, found the complainant did belong to a Scheduled Caste and remanded the case for further enquiry. When the Magistrate then took cognizance and registered the complaint, the respondent challenged both the Sessions Court's remand order and the Magistrate's cognizance order before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which quashed the complaint entirely, holding the Sessions Court had wrongly "taken cognizance" itself.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had misread the Sessions Court's order: the Sessions Court's observations were made only to justify an order of remand for further enquiry under Section 398 Cr.P.C., and did not amount to the Sessions Court itself taking cognizance of the offence. The Court clarified the distinct scope of revisional powers under Sections 397, 398, 399 and 401 Cr.P.C., and found the High Court had wrongly conflated a remand for further enquiry with an improper exercise of cognizance. At the same time, the Court found the Magistrate had erred in treating the Sessions Court's remand observations as if they already established a prima facie case, instead of independently applying his own mind as required when taking cognizance. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, allowed the appeal, and directed that the complaint be considered afresh by the trial court, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in the Supreme Court's own judgment or in the earlier orders.
A revisional court's order directing "further enquiry" into a dismissed criminal complaint is not the same as the revisional court itself deciding the merits or taking cognizance, and a Magistrate who later takes cognizance must independently apply his own mind to the material, not simply adopt a higher court's preliminary observations as if they were a final finding.
