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 moreIndian Oil Corporation advertised a dealership for a "Giriyama" retail outlet in Bihar, to be located within one kilometre of a specified chowk. Among the applicants, Sanjay Kumar Jha scored highest (90.73 marks) and was allotted the dealership, with Prakash Chandra Chaudhary placed second (89.93 marks). Chaudhary challenged the allotment in the Patna High Court, arguing he had been wrongly given zero marks for assets and that his land, too, qualified as being within Giriyama; a Single Judge and then a Division Bench both ruled in his favour and directed the outlet be allotted to him instead.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court, exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226, had overstepped its role by resolving a disputed question of fact (whether Chaudhary's land was actually within the Giriyama area) and by re-ranking candidates itself, contrary to the reports of the District Magistrate, Additional Collector and Circle Officer, which all stated his land was outside Giriyama. The Court reiterated that writ courts cannot act as an appellate authority re-appreciating evidence or conducting a comparative merit assessment between candidates, and can only interfere with administrative decisions for patent illegality or breach of fair play, and even then should generally remit the matter rather than substitute their own finding. Since even on Chaudhary's own best case there was no logical basis for concluding he would rank highest, the Court set aside both the Division Bench and Single Judge orders and dismissed the original writ petition, restoring the dealership to Sanjay Kumar Jha, with parties bearing their own costs.
Courts exercising writ/judicial-review jurisdiction cannot re-decide disputed facts or substitute their own merit ranking for that of the administrative authority: they can only step in for clear illegality or unfairness, and even then should usually send the matter back rather than decide it themselves.
