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 moreSatish died and his friend Anand was seriously injured when a speeding lorry hit their motorcycle near Bangalore. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation to Satish's family and to Anand, based on a notional monthly income of Rs. 3,000 since neither had produced proof of actual income. On the Insurance Company's appeal, the Karnataka High Court held the Insurance Company was not liable (because the offending lorry lacked a valid permit) and, while increasing the compensation for Satish's family based on his driving licence and a Bajaj Auto training certificate, left Anand's award unchanged. The claimants then appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking further enhancement and liability directly against the insurer.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court's basis for raising Satish's notional income from Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 10,000 per month, merely a driving licence and a training certificate, was irrational and insufficiently grounded in evidence of actual employment or earnings, so no further enhancement to the family's compensation was justified; if anything the High Court had already been generous. However, since the claimants had not challenged the High Court's finding that liability rested with the lorry owner rather than the insurer, the Court applied its own recent precedents (Singh Ram v. Nirmala and Pappu v. Vinod Kumar Lamba) and modified the arrangement so that the Insurance Company must pay the awarded compensation to the claimants first, with liberty to recover that amount later from the lorry's owner, ensuring victims are not left without prompt payment merely because of a permit violation by the vehicle owner. Both sets of appeals were allowed to this limited extent, with no order as to costs.
Even when an insurer successfully proves it isn't ultimately liable for an uninsured or permit-violating vehicle, courts can still direct the insurer to pay accident victims immediately and recover the amount later from the vehicle owner, so injured claimants and victims' families aren't made to wait for compensation while liability disputes between the insurer and owner are sorted out.
