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 husband and wife, both government employees in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands, married in 1994 and had a son in 1996. The wife left the matrimonial home in 2003 and did not return, and the husband sued for divorce alleging mental cruelty (frequent forced relocation due to her conduct, verbal abuse of him and their son, refusal to do housework, an earlier, later withdrawn, dowry-harassment complaint, and an unproven affair allegation she made against him) and desertion. The trial court granted the divorce, but the Calcutta High Court's Circuit Bench at Port Blair reversed it on appeal, and the husband then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that allegations of mental cruelty must be assessed cumulatively but still require actual evidence, and found the husband had failed to substantiate most of his claims: no independent witnesses supported the relocation or abuse claims, and the minor son's testimony (he was only 7 at the time of the alleged events) was rightly given little weight by the High Court. On desertion, the Court found credible, unrebutted testimony from three independent witnesses that the spouses were still living together as late as 2005, undermining the husband's claim that the wife deserted him in 2003. It also rejected the "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" argument as an independent ground, since that is not a statutory ground for divorce under the Act. Finding no error in the High Court's reasoning, the Supreme Court dismissed the husband's appeal.
In matrimonial cruelty and desertion cases, courts require real, corroborated evidence rather than bare assertions or a child's recollection of events from early childhood, and "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" alone is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act unless it falls within a statutorily recognised ground like cruelty or desertion.
