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 moreRenuka, the appellant-wife, alleged that her husband developed an illicit relationship with another woman who abused her, that her husband and in-laws harassed her and demanded dowry, and that on one occasion the husband and in-laws came to her parental home, threw chilli powder in her eyes, and assaulted her and her relatives with slippers and stones: an incident allegedly witnessed and reported by a neighbour, and supported by a wound (medical) certificate and recovered slippers/stones. One High Court judge had earlier refused to quash the case against the other in-laws (finding the wound certificate showed real injury), but a different, coordinate judge later quashed the identical proceeding against the husband himself, reasoning that the medical certificate did not match the nature of assault described.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's quashing order, holding that the judge had impermissibly conducted a "mini trial" by comparing the FIR's account of the assault against the medical certificate to assess credibility, something the law reserves for a full trial, not for the quashing stage. It reiterated the settled principle (from R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab and subsequent cases) that proceedings can only be quashed where there is no legal evidence at all or where the evidence is manifestly inconsistent with the accusation, not merely because a judge doubts the ocular version against the medical evidence. The Court also criticised the High Court judge for failing to even refer to the earlier, contrary order of a coordinate bench declining to quash the case against the other in-laws on similar facts, calling this a breach of judicial discipline and consistency that undermines public trust in the judiciary. The proceedings against the husband were revived and the appeal was allowed.
A High Court cannot use its inherent power to quash a criminal case as a shortcut to weigh conflicting evidence (like an FIR account versus a medical certificate): that is the trial court's job; and when a case has already been decided one way by one bench, a later bench dealing with materially similar facts must engage with that earlier decision rather than silently reach the opposite result.
