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 moreCricketer S. Sreesanth, playing for Rajasthan Royals in the 2013 IPL, was arrested by Delhi Police on allegations of spot-fixing during a match against Kings XI Punjab. The BCCI suspended him, and after a one-man inquiry and disciplinary proceedings under its Anti-Corruption Code, its disciplinary committee found him guilty of several corruption-related offences and imposed a lifetime ban from all cricketing activity in September 2013. Sreesanth challenged the ban years later, after he was discharged in the related criminal case and sought permission to play again, and the matter ultimately reached the Supreme Court after the Kerala High Court's rulings.
The Supreme Court held that the disciplinary proceedings had not violated natural justice and that the BCCI committee's factual findings on the corruption charges were not perverse or baseless, so courts should not reassess disciplinary findings like an appellate body: judicial review only steps in for perversity or a complete absence of evidence. However, the Court found that while the Anti-Corruption Code allows a punishment range from a minimum of five years to a maximum lifetime ban for the proven offences, the disciplinary committee's order imposing the lifetime ban had failed to consider the mandatory aggravating and mitigating factors listed in the Code, making the maximum sanction unsustainable as imposed. The Court also noted Sreesanth's conduct after the ban (not challenging it initially, later seeking to play again) as relevant. It therefore partly allowed the appeal, setting aside only the lifetime-ban portion of the punishment and directing the BCCI's disciplinary committee to reconsider the quantum of sanction (giving Sreesanth a chance to be heard) within three months, while upholding the underlying finding of guilt.
Even where a disciplinary body's finding of wrongdoing is upheld as sound and courts will not disturb it absent perversity, the punishment imposed must still follow the disciplinary code's own mandatory process, including weighing listed aggravating and mitigating factors, and a maximum penalty imposed without that process can be struck down even while the underlying guilt finding stands.
