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 moreThe appellant, a Maharashtra state undertaking, had placed a Rs. 9 crore fixed deposit with Vijaya Bank. It later discovered the Bank had sanctioned an overdraft/credit facility of Rs. 8.10 crore against this fixed deposit, which the appellant claimed was done fraudulently without its authorisation, prompting it to report the matter to the police Economic Offences Wing and the RBI. When the Bank eventually closed the overdraft by adjusting it against the deposit's maturity value and remitted only the balance, the appellant refused this adjustment and filed a consumer complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) seeking the full deposit amount with interest. The NCDRC dismissed the complaint, holding the appellant was not a "consumer" because the deposit was for a commercial purpose.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal but on different reasoning than the NCDRC. On the "commercial purpose" question, the Court held that merely earning interest on a fixed deposit does not by itself make banking services "commercial", but here the Bank's specific claim, that the FDR had been pledged to obtain credit facilities for the appellant's business, raised a genuine factual dispute about the true purpose of the deposit that could not be resolved without first determining whether the alleged pledge was fraudulent or genuine. On the second and decisive issue, the Court held that because the dispute centered on serious, contested allegations of fraud and forged pledge documents, matters going beyond a simple "deficiency in service" and into questions properly suited to a civil or criminal court, the summary jurisdiction of the consumer forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was not the appropriate venue to adjudicate it. The Court therefore upheld the dismissal of the complaint (while clarifying the NCDRC's own reasoning was not entirely correct) and expressly preserved the appellant's right to pursue the matter before the appropriate civil or criminal forum.
Consumer forums are meant for summary redressal of straightforward service deficiencies, not for adjudicating complex, disputed allegations of fraud, forgery, or criminality: such disputes must be pursued through a regular civil suit or criminal complaint, even if that means a consumer complaint on the same facts gets dismissed on maintainability grounds.
