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 moreKanika's sister, a government health worker, died in a motorcycle-jeep collision in 2009. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded compensation, which the Punjab and Haryana High Court later enhanced, but the High Court's original ("Main") order held that ex-gratia amounts the family received under Haryana's 2006 Compassionate Assistance Rules had to be deducted from that compensation. The claimants then sought "clarification" of that order, and in a later order the High Court effectively reversed itself, holding those amounts need not be deducted after all: a reversal the insurer challenged before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that once a High Court decides a motor-accident appeal, it cannot use an application styled as "clarification" to substantively change the judgment: the Motor Vehicles Act creates no such procedure, and any correction must fit within the narrow confines of Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 152 CPC permits only correction of clerical or accidental errors, not re-determination of substantive issues, as settled in Jayalakshmi Coelho v. Oswald Joseph Coelho and State of Punjab v. Darshan Singh; similarly, the inherent power under Section 151 CPC cannot override the Code's express provisions. Applying the earlier three-judge bench ruling in Reliance General Insurance v. Shashi Sharma, the Court held that only benefits under the 2006 Rules that directly replace lost pay/allowances (not pensions or unrelated benefits) are deductible from motor-accident compensation. The Court set aside the "clarification" order, restored the original Main Order (including the deduction), and directed the claimants to file an affidavit before the Tribunal disclosing amounts received so the Tribunal can make a suitable disbursal order.
A court cannot use a "clarification" application to substantively rewrite its own final judgment: genuine corrections are limited to clerical/accidental errors, and any attempt to alter findings or the compensation amount under the guise of clarification must instead go through the strict formal process of a review.
