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 moreA complainant alleged that the appellant's trading firm had taken over Rs. 3.49 crore from various merchants for castor seed deals and issued cheques that bounced, leading to a cheating and criminal breach of trust case. During investigation, police seized Rs. 50 lakh in cash. A witness listed in the chargesheet (respondent no. 2) applied for release of this cash to himself, claiming it represented money owed to him from a separate business deal with the same firm, and produced a bill, audit report, and ledger to support this. Both the trial magistrate and the Sessions Judge refused to release the cash while the case was pending, but the Gujarat High Court reversed this and ordered the money released to the witness.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the decisions of the courts below. It held that the High Court had correctly cited the governing precedent (Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai) on releasing seized valuables and currency during trial, but had failed to properly apply it to these facts, since the seized money was itself the subject matter of the dispute about who was cheated. The Court reasoned that simply because the amount claimed by the witness matched the amount seized did not conclusively prove ownership, especially given the very long list of other alleged victims: that determination could only be made after full evidence was considered at trial. It directed that the money (already withdrawn following the High Court's order) be deposited with the trial court's registry pending the outcome.
When cash or property seized during a criminal investigation is itself part of the alleged crime (such as disputed proceeds), courts should be cautious about releasing it to any one claimant before trial: ownership disputes over such property are for the trial court to resolve after examining all the evidence, not to be decided prematurely.
