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 moreFollowing a scuffle outside a magistrate's court in 2011, the appellant and the accused (an advocate) lodged cross-FIRs against each other over the same incident. The charge-sheet in the appellant's FIR was filed about a year and 20 days after the incident, and the accused later got the Delhi High Court to quash that FIR on the ground that cognizance was taken beyond the one-year limitation period prescribed under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. The appellant challenged that quashing order before the Supreme Court, arguing the High Court had used the wrong reference date to calculate limitation.
The Supreme Court held that the Delhi High Court erred by treating the date the Magistrate took cognizance as the relevant date for computing limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Relying on the binding Constitution Bench precedent in Sarah Mathew, the Court reaffirmed that the correct reference point is the date of filing of the complaint/FIR (i.e., the date criminal proceedings are initiated), not the date of cognizance, and this rule applies equally whether the case originates from a police FIR or a private complaint. The Court also rebuked counsel for attempting to argue around settled Constitution Bench law without a valid basis for distinguishing it, calling this contrary to professional ethics. It set aside the High Court's quashing order and directed the trial to proceed expeditiously.
For criminal limitation purposes, the clock under Section 468 Cr.P.C. runs from the date the FIR/complaint is filed (initiation of proceedings), not from the later date a Magistrate takes cognizance: a distinction that can determine whether a criminal case survives a time-bar challenge.
